Right-Wing perverts

[twin-nut]

Area 51, how can you talk about being screwed by capitalists when undoubtedly most of your(and my) life in the great old US ofA benefits from capitalism. The top 10% of capitalist tax payers pay a full 70% share of non-corporate income taxes to the government. That makes you angry probably. Maybe they should pay more, like 80%. Freedom has it's price. Those same 10% do alot of the hiring you know. People like Bill Gates who give 5-10 billion to charity helping millions around the world. Bad, bad capitalist. People like him pay more taxes than 40million citizens combined. It's never enough though, right. Corporate taxes account for the lion-share of taxes anyway. Taxes from companies like Shell. If somebody broke the law, they should be held accountable. Period. Be happy that US corporate taxes are allready nearly the highest in the entire WORLD. But paying the most is not good enough is it. You need more, more, more. Hey, if you want more move somewhere far away from Napa Valley. I don't think the rich corporations and individuals need more tax breaks, but compared to you and I they do more than their share. They fvcking earned it. And alot of the wealthiest people give huge ammounts to charity. Thank them won't you.

[nero]

stubborn facts !
why should they get in the way ?

[Gog]

Originally Posted by twin-nut

Area 51, how can you talk about being screwed by capitalists when undoubtedly most of your(and my) life in the great old US ofA benefits from capitalism. The top 10% of capitalist tax payers pay a full 70% share of non-corporate income taxes to the government. That makes you angry probably. Maybe they should pay more, like 80%. Freedom has it's price. Those same 10% do alot of the hiring you know. People like Bill Gates who give 5-10 billion to charity helping millions around the world. Bad, bad capitalist. People like him pay more taxes than 40million citizens combined. It's never enough though, right. Corporate taxes account for the lion-share of taxes anyway. Taxes from companies like Shell. If somebody broke the law, they should be held accountable. Period. Be happy that US corporate taxes are allready nearly the highest in the entire WORLD. But paying the most is not good enough is it. You need more, more, more. Hey, if you want more move somewhere far away from Napa Valley. I don't think the rich corporations and individuals need more tax breaks, but compared to you and I they do more than their share. They fvcking earned it. And alot of the wealthiest people give huge ammounts to charity. Thank them won't you.

It's pretty obvious that capitalism has it's rewards and benefits. I dont think many of us could argue that. To ignore the viral properties of the unscrupulous, uber greedy imperialist, industrialist, capitalist mafioso, is to ignore the nature of man.

We will make things extinct and decimate habitat in the quest for riches. I am not so interested in succeeding in the world of materialism and losing my natural frredom, my soul or my beloved nature. You're wrong if you dont think you could blink and it's gone.

How much freer can a man be than to be safe and sound in a healthy relationship with nature? Cities dwellers must think of freedoms beyond cities and industry. I mean, if you look at the heavily socialist countries, they provide the basics and they provide well. Beyond that, we need what is it you say? The filthy rich? The endless, toxic, meaningless junk? Do you know the numbers of very small businesses thatt provide so much of what you claim is trickled down by the richest? You may be shocked to find out.

If you dont acknowledge the devastating side of unbridled capitalism, it will not acknowledge you.

[G8RDuc]

Originally Posted by Gog

I mean, if you look at the heavily socialist countries, they provide the basics and they provide well. Beyond that, we need what is it you say? The filthy rich? The endless, toxic, meaningless junk? Do you know the numbers of very small businesses thatt provide so much of what you claim is trickled down by the richest? You may be shocked to find out.

I'm not sure I understand this part, Gog. Are you saying that socialism works? That it's ok to redistribute money from the hard working rich to give to the poor?

And actually, I would love to know the numbers of the very small businesses that provide. What are they?

[Gog]

I am saying that limits have their own reward. Not always do they grease you palm though. There will always be people who find the best ways and work extra hard to benefit themselves and their families...great. But if your family makes it rich cutting down a forest that is hundreds of thousands of years old, and is an integral part of natural living, for passing profit...hmmm.

What part of 'socialism works' dont you get? Do you think capitalists go extinct in a social environment? You're confused with communism.. two separate issues all together.

Try this... It used to be that the earth was thought of as an endless, hapless and invulnerable frontier. Now we know it isn't, well some still think in 19th century mode and are convinced we can continue on as if we are free to topple nature like it is an adversary.

So we, the smart ones, must adapt or die... pretty simple. The stupid and the greedy...fuk em.

[G8RDuc]

Not confusing the two at all. You said socialist society. By it's very definition, socialism is a redistribution of property. No private property. So what do we work for? Not to be confused with totalitarianism, where one party rules EVERYTHING and the state is no more. Keep in mind, in both systems, rights are abolished.

I for one believe in free will, with responsibility. I do NOT want the government telling me how to live, etc. And that's what is happening in the US.

As for your forestry comments. I do NOT disagree. Again, as stated before, I do not believe in environmental waste.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Originally Posted by Gog

I am saying that limits have their own reward. Not always do they grease you palm though. There will always be people who find the best ways and work extra hard to benefit themselves and their families...great. But if your family makes it rich cutting down a forest that is hundreds of thousands of years old, and is an integral part of natural living, for passing profit...hmmm.

What part of 'socialism works' dont you get? Do you think capitalists go extinct in a social environment? You're confused with communism.. two separate issues all together.

Try this... It used to be that the earth was thought of as an endless, hapless and invulnerable frontier. Now we know it isn't, well some still think in 19th century mode and are convinced we can continue on as if we are free to topple nature like it is an adversary.

So we, the smart ones, must adapt or die... pretty simple. The stupid and the greedy...fuk em.

[Gog]

Originally Posted by G8RDuc

Not confusing the two at all. You said socialist society. By it's very definition, socialism is a redistribution of property. No private property. So what do we work for? Not to be confused with totalitarianism, where one party rules EVERYTHING and the state is no more. Keep in mind, in both systems, rights are abolished.

Your definition of "socialism " and mine are different. Even dictionaries need updating... Let me give you an example. I dont want to share everything but I dont want to own everything either. You call Canada a socialist country. I own my house and property. I own a small business, I pay a lot of taxes, and have insurance, but I am covered if I get sick, whether its little sick or big sick. I can invest, get rich and own lots of shit. It's not as bad as you indicate or claim.

The biggest difference between us is that taxes are really high here and business has way more regulation.. We still have our millionaires being turned out at a good rate and look at other benefits we enjoy. Happy neighbors, less disparity, more equality and equal opportunity, more tolerance, less segregation.
I think these are good things myself.

I for one believe in free will, with responsibility. I do NOT want the government telling me how to live, etc. And that's what is happening in the US.
Are you sure it's not just a management model? Do you really think your country is just going to roll over for the "weaker" liberals? Man, you have no faith in what you claim is the better way.
I have been the president of a corporation and a member of a Union...(not @ the same time) I have seen, first hand, the benefits and drawbacks of both... both negative sides are equally nauseating...

As for your forestry comments. I do NOT disagree. Again, as stated before, I do not believe in environmental waste.

Socialism isn't an inflexible philosophy of nonnegotiable doctrines and edicts. There's room for compromise and degrees of government interventions in law, policy and money management. It has it's contradictions, like anything else. Between our countries, there are way more similarities than differences.

I think we have to see the benefits of both and come up with a new compromise for a new era. I dont want government in my face either. It certainly isnt in Canada. Yet, I dont have to worry that my neighbour is unlucky in life or is too stupid to have health insurance or he is too stupid to stop racing motorcycles..
Healthcare for all, no matter what. I say thats a good thing.

Try to imagine the foreign policy based on capitalism, sickening how the bill from greedy, lying, marauding, interventionist capitalists gets passed on to the taxpayer whilst the scoundrels who profit simply crawl into cracks they have caused... sickening. A great example, Haliburton and their obscene profit s during GWB's presidency. It goes on, and on. We all saw the collapse... We dont want those types, I hope.

[G8RDuc]

I don't think the definition of socialism changes, it's your personal definition that is different. A modified socialism of sorts.

Let me put it this way: We have a health care system that has it's problems. If we took care of those problems, (can anyone say tort reform instead?) the system would be in much better shape than the proposed reform. Besides the fact that this government does not have a history of success in running large programs.

A difference between our beliefs leads to a difference in belief of government. Health care isn't a right, in my opinion. Much like home owners insurance or automobile insurance is required, it is still not given to you. (here in the US). And in cases of emergencies, the government still provides protection (families without home insurance during a hurricane still are provided a place to live, etc. and those without health insurance can still get free care).

Maybe you're right in the fact that we should try to take the best of both countries and find a better solution, but the fact of the matter is that our conversation (which I'm thankful for a civil one finally) shows that we believe in different ideas on who deserves or is entitled to something. I have NOTHING against anyone trying to become rich through capitalism. That's the dream here and I think everyone should have the right to try it without penalty of success. I do NOT believe it is ok to tax the rich more.

The Haliburton sample is just a sample of power in government. Happens all the time and I don't see it changing (eg - Gore and his Carbon credits payments, which go to his own carbon credit company, etc).
Civil conversation has it's place.

Originally Posted by Gog

Socialism isn't an inflexible philosophy of nonnegotiable doctrines and edicts. There's room for compromise and degrees of government interventions in law, policy and money management. It has it's contradictions, like anything else. Between our countries, there are way more similarities than differences.

I think we have to see the benefits of both and come up with a new compromise for a new era. I dont want government in my face either. It certainly isnt in Canada. Yet, I dont have to worry that my neighbour is unlucky in life or is too stupid to have health insurance or he is too stupid to stop racing motorcycles..
Healthcare for all, no matter what. I say thats a good thing.

Try to imagine the foreign policy based on capitalism, sickening how the bill from greedy, lying, marauding, interventionist capitalists gets passed on to the taxpayer whilst the scoundrels who profit simply crawl into cracks they have caused... sickening. A great example, Haliburton and their obscene profit s during GWB's presidency. It goes on, and on. We all saw the collapse... We dont want those types, I hope.

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by twin-nut

Area 51, how can you talk about being screwed by capitalists when undoubtedly most of your(and my) life in the great old US ofA benefits from capitalism. The top 10% of capitalist tax payers pay a full 70% share of non-corporate income taxes to the government. That makes you angry probably. Maybe they should pay more, like 80%. Freedom has it's price. Those same 10% do alot of the hiring you know. People like Bill Gates who give 5-10 billion to charity helping millions around the world. Bad, bad capitalist. People like him pay more taxes than 40million citizens combined. It's never enough though, right. Corporate taxes account for the lion-share of taxes anyway. Taxes from companies like Shell. If somebody broke the law, they should be held accountable. Period. Be happy that US corporate taxes are allready nearly the highest in the entire WORLD. But paying the most is not good enough is it. You need more, more, more. Hey, if you want more move somewhere far away from Napa Valley. I don't think the rich corporations and individuals need more tax breaks, but compared to you and I they do more than their share. They fvcking earned it. And alot of the wealthiest people give huge ammounts to charity. Thank them won't you.

First of all, much of corporate ownership rests with individuals. So really, we are paying their tax. Secondly, saying a corporation has a certain tax rate is bunk. They know how to play the system and not pay their share. Perhaps you'd enjoy this artical:

High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading at SmartMoney.com

But I didn't start the tax discussion. I brought up how these companies bribe public officials that are under our employment, like Gail Norton. People who are using, selling, our resources for the purpose of guarenteeing their own future employment with these companies that they enable. How can it not be a crime to make backroom deals about future employment in this situation? But good luck proving it. That's why they do it - they think they can get away with it.

Your point about capitalism being the engine that improves life is a good one and one I agree with, duh. But there's a world of difference between bettering society and becoming super rich for ego gratification. With some people, greed wins out in the end. Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffett, or many other generous capitalists fit into that catagory. I don't know what the percentage is of the well-intentioned wealthy and I'm sure no one else does either. It is unknowable. I do know that I am sick of reading about people like Gail Norton and Shell not knowing the limits and bounds of greed. These types of stories are common. How could anyone not be bothered by that?

[G8RDuc]

Originally Posted by Area 51

These types of stories are common. How could anyone not be bothered by that?

Agree it is evil...but common?

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by G8RDuc

By it's very definition, socialism is a redistribution of property. No private property. So what do we work for?

Not true. Are you under the misunderstanding that no one in the Netherlands, for instance can own a home, or a car, or anything else? Socialistic countries are full of capitalists and wealthy people. But their social policies buffer them from the affects of a poor class (immigration is another issue). If we keep pushing in the current direction - seperation of classes, then we risk the eventual related conflicts. More crime, more protest, possible revolution. You can already see the future. Gated communities of the haves and slums of the have nots. And eventually the have nots will be knocking at the gates. But hey, the haves will still have their weapons so they assume they will be okay. Unfortunately, the have nots can get weapons too, quit easily in fact. It could get very interesting here in another 100 years.

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by G8RDuc

Agree it is evil...but common?

Let's just say it's debatable. More than I care to see and it's reasonable to assume that it is quite common.

[G8RDuc]

Sorry, I disagree. I do not see people flocking to the Netherlands to live out their dream. It's a vacation destination for sure, but not a place where thousands go for permanent residence. Is it really that great? Taxes are really high there, there are still large class differences (if that's a worry to you, which it seems to be), and from what I know, government services cost a fortune (from transportation to supplies).

So what do you suggest, Area? That it is OK to force the wealthy to give more to the poor? Instead of telling the poor that a strong work ethic will have it's rewards? Or do you not believe in that? It's usually NOT the poor that will be knocking on the walls of the rich, it's the lazy who want more and more free hand outs. Opportunity is available to EVERYONE in this country to succeed. It's whether or not you take advantage of it that will determine where you land.

Originally Posted by Area 51

Not true. Are you under the misunderstanding that no one in the Netherlands, for instance can own a home, or a car, or anything else? Socialistic countries are full of capitalists and wealthy people. But their social policies buffer them from the affects of a poor class (immigration is another issue). If we keep pushing in the current direction - seperation of classes, then we risk the eventual related conflicts. More crime, more protest, possible revolution. You can already see the future. Gated communities of the haves and slums of the have nots. And eventually the have nots will be knocking at the gates. But hey, the haves will still have their weapons so they assume they will be okay. Unfortunately, the have nots can get weapons too, quit easily in fact. It could get very interesting here in another 100 years.

[Area 51]

The Netherlands is a tiny country. So immigration would be a fraction of what it is here, for that reason alone. But I do know that a whole lot of North African people, for instance, migrate to Europe - to so-called socialist countries. And having travelled extensively in Europe I can tell you that I saw little lack of prosperity. In fact it's just the opposite. On the whole Europe seems quite a bit richer than the U.S. In some parts of the U.S. you can travel for days without seeing any prosperity. In Europe those places pass in minutes. So the whole socialism-stifles-prosperity arguement seems mostly BS to me.

The other day I heard someone say that they travelled across the U.S. and all they heard for days was nothing but FOX radio and the like. She said "you know, those people don't know what they don't know." Think about that. Could it be that all this pro-U.S., pro-capitalist dogma is nothing more than the arguements of people who just repeat what they've been told over and over. I damn well know it is because I've spent a good deal of time living and traveling in redneck farming towns. I think these people just say what they want to believe, no matter what the reality is. In the end, that kind of thinking will bite us in the ass. For instance, green tech. and firm regulation are marketable things. They have value in the marketplace. The genius comes in seeing the potential. Those who don't see it will fade away...and they'll bitch to Rush all the way to the crapper.

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by G8RDuc

So what do you suggest, Area? That it is OK to force the wealthy to give more to the poor? Instead of telling the poor that a strong work ethic will have it's rewards? Or do you not believe in that? It's usually NOT the poor that will be knocking on the walls of the rich, it's the lazy who want more and more free hand outs. Opportunity is available to EVERYONE in this country to succeed. It's whether or not you take advantage of it that will determine where you land.

Yeah, that's what I suggest .
Some wealth leads to jobs but much of it just sits there a complete waste. Also, much of todays wealth is reward beyond the amount of risk taken. At present, IMO, there is an imbalance in the calculation of risk-reward. The top tax rate should be double digits above what it is now. After all, how much wealth can someone use? And how is that wealth generated? Without labor there would be no wealth. So really, the minimum wage should be based on the amount of wealth generated by whatever business you work in, not by what an entrepreneur is willing to pay. That's how compensation should be designed - on preformance. The same goes for executive compensation. We all know what happens when it is not based on performance.

The sad thing is that in a democratic society we continue to prop up the system of rewarding the wealthy (who know that in normal situations you have to have money to make money) for using labor as a resource and not as fellow humanity. I only hope that we are all lucky enough to have a boss with a conscience.

And by the way, you should never "give" money to the poor. You design a system that incentivises participation in society. You pay people for picking up garbage even if they goof off alot of the time. We've got all this wealth and it doesn't solve problems. Which brings up another point:

Why don't we buy up all the opium that is grown in Afghanistan and burn it? That would dry up the Taliban and al Qaeda's primary source of funds. It could bankrupt them, so to speak. Are we too stupid, too stubourn to come up with ideas?

[nycstripes]

Why don't we napalm the opium fields. Why do we have to buy the stuff to burn it? Why reward opium growers by buying that crap.

[nycstripes]

Great choice for a "safe schools" czar..

EDITORIAL: At the president's pleasure - Washington Times

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an "older man." At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama's "safe school czar." It's getting hard to keep track of all of this president's problematic appointments. Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees has broken down.

In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship.

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by nycstripes

Why don't we napalm the opium fields. Why do we have to buy the stuff to burn it? Why reward opium growers by buying that crap.

See, there's an example of what I was alluding to.
If you napalm the fields you become the enemy. How many farmers will we kill? How many will we send to the Taliban for relief. Hearts and minds is not just a slogan. It's a strategy.

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by nycstripes

Great choice for a "safe schools" czar..

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Fox News reported

He would be a left-wing pervert if the sources weren't the Washington Times and FOX Opinions. Other than that I have no reason to disbelieve the story. So as of right now it's yet another smear .

Hold on, I just checked Wiki and it seems his dad was a preacher. Now I believe the story.

[twin-nut]

Alot of great comments without name calling. I agree with alot said on both sides. Corruption in politics on either side will continue forever. They should be punished when caught, I agree. Shareholders are not tax payers for corporations, they are risk takers looking for short or long term gain. If 1% of the wealthiest taxpayers pay 30% of income taxes,, isn't that at least their fair share? I think so. Germany's new coallition in power wants to roll baack highest tax rate from 45-35%, less than our 39.6% rate. Socialist countries are moving toward the right of center because people want more of the spoils of their work. They don't want to be filthy rich but want a little better standard of living. I have relatives in Germany. They are happy they have free health care to fall back on but not that their children suffer for specialty care with long waits and dificulty getting advanced care. One died of lyphoma because the delay in getting the chhild to the US for a transplant of bone marrow was too long(so the doctors in Germany stated). One died of head injury because they had to travel too far for a cat scan and neurosurgeon. Every county in the US has cat scan and MRI by medicare rule.

Point is Americans do not want health care for all at a leasened quality for all, and those who would be happy with free health care because they cannot pay would never except a different level of quality. That's un-american correct.

There are over 1 million millionaires in the US. Most self made millionaires are indeed small business owners who work very very hard. They are also huge suppliers of jobs and benefits. More taxes means layoffs and more hours worked for them. This is reality. We drive our largest corporations to become multinational in large part to make more profit on less foreign corporate tax paid. Again, every reduction in taxes in the last 50 years has brought more money to the treasury. Fact. Liberals know this but won't get their heads around the idea that this is better. If we regulate small business more, they will stay smaller.

What is the minimum wage value for a hamburger flipper? Minimum wage is for unskilled labor. How much sskill is really involved in production line work? Too much apparently because US manufacturing cannot afford labor(including those that make good products).

Gog, I don''t know why people do not like nature more. That's why we need more nuclear energy. All that white stuff coming out is water after all and waste disposal is quite safe(stuff happens but that is the exception correct). Doyou mind if we send you 10 million Mexican illegal aliens? See how everyone feels about segregation and tolerance and free health care when they have the same problems we do?

By American standards of success, many in European socialist countries would be considered lower class by virtue of the cars they drive and homes they live in and size of property. Not saying this should be right.

Most of the redneck farmers and such may seem poor but many are content and would not trade a tough low income farm job for a Napa Valley lifestyle ever. Many a farmer is a land sale away from being a millionaire but would rather struggle than give up their chosen life. I am proud of these people more so lawyers and bankers any day.

How about we talk flat tax or something. You know when everybody pays their fare share no exemptions no excuses,whether you pay a billion or 100 bucks, at least you pay type of system. Sounds positively fair. Or how about a good socialist European or Canadian VAT-value added tax. Maybe like 15-20% on everything like Germany. A hundred dollar pair of sneakers won't seem so good any more when it's 120 bucks.