Conquer Club

Boehner's Lawsuit

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jul 19, 2014 3:42 pm

oVo wrote:
notyou2 wrote:Isn't there some sort of protection for elected officials that they can't be sued for decisions made while in office?

Probably... since there's no shortage of examples.

PhatScott wrote:2008 bill you lay on Bush was written by Democrat Congress. OH NOW CONGRESS MATTERS BUT BACK THEN CONGRESS DIDN'T MATTER?

So the Congress was accountable then, but not now?
Bush signed the bill didn't he or was he just looking to exit
the Oval Office on a positive note?


Nah, I don't regard Bush as blameless. I criticized him very highly. I think this move was to try to give Republicans a boost in the 2008 election with the Hispanic vote.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jul 19, 2014 3:45 pm

patches70 wrote:Boehner's lawsuit won't get far at all. It'll be thrown out of court or he will be ruled against.

Since Congress has ceded it's authority on so many things, I can't see Boehner standing in front of a judge and getting the judge to buy this.

Think about it from the judge's point of view-
"You want me to rule with you over powers you already have granted by the Constitution but are unwilling to use those powers and want me to do it for you? I don't think so, case dismissed."

And that will be that.

That's why Obama is laughing his ass off at Boehner and mocking the crying Speaker.
Obama: So sue me! Hahahahahaha!


The House controls the power of the purse. Obama can make any proclamations he wants, but if he has no money there isn't much he can do to enforce or enact those proclamations. If the President is abusing his power it's because the Congress has let him abuse his power and Congress has the means to stop it and it doesn't require any judges and trials and such nonsense.

But I guess this serves Boehner well enough from a political POV. It makes it appear that he's trying to do something while not actually doing anything. Those who are easily influenced or manipulated might actually fall for the ploy and think Boehner might not be the pussy he is.

But the rest of us know better.


Boehner is a pussy. He's trying to stay Speaker of the House
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby DaGip on Sat Jul 19, 2014 4:12 pm

patches70 wrote:
DaGip wrote: Thumbs up! =D> Boehner is trying to salvage what little dignity he holds at his job amidst his colleagues and conservative peers. The lawsuit does nothing except try an attempt at saving his and his buddies political careers. The Republicans have been highjacked by the Tea Party, and the Tea Party runs shit now! Boehner is pro-establishment, while his base is bent on ultra-conservatism. The Purge will begin soon and established Republicans will begin losing their jobs to Tea Party nut cases. OMFG! The Democrats and their Socialistic agenda are going to remain in power a long, long time!



You can clap all you want but you'd be wrong if you think the Democrats are immune from this. There is a reason so many democrats distance themselves around election time from progressive policies. Cause if they actually say what they really think then they'll be tossed out of office as well. Ultra conservative, ultra progressive, doesn't matter, they are all nutcases as you put it.

But the American people routinely put these types out of office when the politicians overstep. What the real story is is that Congress has slowly but surely been giving up their Constitutional powers and responsibilities for some time now. That's all well and good so long as those who take those powers are doing what you like, but the pendulum always swings and in due time there will be someone not to your liking doing things they shouldn't with powers they shouldn't have.

Then you'll be up a shit creek cause you were cheerleading the whole time while it was "your guy" doing the stuff. You won't have a leg to stand on when it's the "other side" in the position of power.


Then what will you do?
Probably riot in the streets considering your crazy rhetoric (parody) through the various threads. Luckily, I don't think you actually believe half the stuff you spew so it makes me chuckle, but there are crazies out there that actually think like you parody.

Meh. It is what it is I guess. Nothing but fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out. Then the real fun begins!


The more the socialist agenda succeeds, the closer the world will be to Utopia and the age of corporate greed and hording wealth will be over. Your dollar will be worthless and the wealthy will flee this land like the fucking cowards they are. They use over taxation as the reasoning behind turning their backs on their country, but that is total bullshit. It has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with them being cowards. Meanwhile, the middle class and the impoverished can't move to Belize, Shanghai, or Hong Kong...they have to stay here and pay the taxes that the RICH REFUSE to pay! Fucking COWARDS! I hate every last one of them! Let 'em run. Let 'em hide their little meaningless treasures in some obscure offshore bank, but they will be branded as treasonous betrayers of the state.

When it comes to the "nut cases" of which we speak, I am indeed embraced to the more liberal end. My vision of the world not only incorporates humans, but also machines (and combinations thereof). Laws must be made to encompass this quickly approaching reality. When machines finally begin their "age" of existence, ours will decline. How exactly will humans fit in with cyborgs and robots that are faster, smarter, stronger than themselves? Do you begin to give them citizenship? If they decide to just take over the world, how would we stop them? Capitalism has everything to benefit from robotic machines; however, of what benefit is capitalism to a machine? It isn't. Computers aren't Capitalists! Socialism is of better use to robots; and moreover, communism fits the bill quite well for a world ruled by machines. I think you would agree with that, but in a much different light. You too would consider Socialists and Commies to be "robots" of the state, doing their overlords will; whereas I am of the belief that the world literally will succumb to machines because of capitalism and the planet's citizenship will indeed be cybernetic in nature. When that day arises, there will be no more human workers. If you no longer have a working class, you will no longer have a spending class. So who will buy the products the wealthy business person is trying to sell? Eventually nobody. Will the business person just make widgets for nothing? No. His learned state of human existence will experience dissonance as it begins to realize it's true nature and potential on the planet. Dissonance is what the Tea Party people are experiencing right now, a change has happened in their country and they are struggling with both reality and their utter denial that the country has changed in both politics at home and upon the world theater. It ain't going back to the "good ol' days", we are staying the course and following our Northern Star. You can bail ship if you want with the rest of the cowards, but as for me...I'm stickin' behind our president.

And I would never riot. I don't have time, because I have to work to pay all those taxes the rich fuckers are skirting around. But all this future speculation still doesn't disregard the fact that Boehner's lawsuit is a meaningless political ploy. It will amount to nothing and go absolutely nowhere.
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DaGip
 
Posts: 4027
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:48 am
Location: Watertown, South Dakota

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby ooge on Sat Jul 19, 2014 4:37 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
ooge wrote:It has been mention the Democrats could not keep control of the House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ions,_2012 This link shows that 1.4 million more Americans voted for Democratic candidates over Republican candidates in the last election.Yet Republicans kept control of the house.I should note that in states that democratic candidates carry in presidential elections but currently have republicans in control of the state. there has been talks to change how elector votes are given out.Pennsylvania for example has talked about doing it by Congressional districts.Under these rules this would have meant mitt Romney would have received more elector votes then President Obama even though more people Voted for Obama in Pennsylvania.


The Democrats got more votes in 2012, and the Democrats gained a few seats in 2012 while Republicans lost some. There's a reason Republicans kept the house. Because 2010 Republicans won so hardcore. It was the biggest Congressional victory since FDR. It would probably take the Democrats 3 election cycles to match what the Tea Party did in 1.

There is also the reality that blue cities and states are losing population, as red cities and states are gaining population.


as you say the repubs stomped on the democrats in 2010 a midterm election,Repubs do historically better in midterms but in that one they did particularly well.The bad thing for democrats with that one and has the longer lasting effect is it was a census year,census is when the redistricting gets done.With so many repubs winning the governerships as well that year you can see how the redistricting went As a result when more people voted for democratic house members in 2012 then republican, The repubs held the House. This and Democratic presidential candidates winning 5 of the last 6 popular votes but only 4 of the last 6 elections as a republican the trend does not look good. I guess if I were a repub. strategists I would try to get more Americans to vote for repubs somehow or keep the ones who vote against repubs from voting.
Image
User avatar
Captain ooge
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:46 am

ooge wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
ooge wrote:It has been mention the Democrats could not keep control of the House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ions,_2012 This link shows that 1.4 million more Americans voted for Democratic candidates over Republican candidates in the last election.Yet Republicans kept control of the house.I should note that in states that democratic candidates carry in presidential elections but currently have republicans in control of the state. there has been talks to change how elector votes are given out.Pennsylvania for example has talked about doing it by Congressional districts.Under these rules this would have meant mitt Romney would have received more elector votes then President Obama even though more people Voted for Obama in Pennsylvania.


The Democrats got more votes in 2012, and the Democrats gained a few seats in 2012 while Republicans lost some. There's a reason Republicans kept the house. Because 2010 Republicans won so hardcore. It was the biggest Congressional victory since FDR. It would probably take the Democrats 3 election cycles to match what the Tea Party did in 1.

There is also the reality that blue cities and states are losing population, as red cities and states are gaining population.


as you say the repubs stomped on the democrats in 2010 a midterm election,Repubs do historically better in midterms but in that one they did particularly well.The bad thing for democrats with that one and has the longer lasting effect is it was a census year,census is when the redistricting gets done.With so many repubs winning the governerships as well that year you can see how the redistricting went As a result when more people voted for democratic house members in 2012 then republican, The repubs held the House. This and Democratic presidential candidates winning 5 of the last 6 popular votes but only 4 of the last 6 elections as a republican the trend does not look good. I guess if I were a repub. strategists I would try to get more Americans to vote for repubs somehow or keep the ones who vote against repubs from voting.


Fair point. Miss ya round here mate!

Not to one-up ya, but the new process is stacking red states/cities/districts with illegal aliens that the Federal government who placed them there does not have to tell the mayor or the governor they did so.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby ooge on Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:35 am

Phatscotty wrote:
ooge wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
ooge wrote:It has been mention the Democrats could not keep control of the House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ions,_2012 This link shows that 1.4 million more Americans voted for Democratic candidates over Republican candidates in the last election.Yet Republicans kept control of the house.I should note that in states that democratic candidates carry in presidential elections but currently have republicans in control of the state. there has been talks to change how elector votes are given out.Pennsylvania for example has talked about doing it by Congressional districts.Under these rules this would have meant mitt Romney would have received more elector votes then President Obama even though more people Voted for Obama in Pennsylvania.


The Democrats got more votes in 2012, and the Democrats gained a few seats in 2012 while Republicans lost some. There's a reason Republicans kept the house. Because 2010 Republicans won so hardcore. It was the biggest Congressional victory since FDR. It would probably take the Democrats 3 election cycles to match what the Tea Party did in 1.

There is also the reality that blue cities and states are losing population, as red cities and states are gaining population.


as you say the repubs stomped on the democrats in 2010 a midterm election,Repubs do historically better in midterms but in that one they did particularly well.The bad thing for democrats with that one and has the longer lasting effect is it was a census year,census is when the redistricting gets done.With so many repubs winning the governerships as well that year you can see how the redistricting went As a result when more people voted for democratic house members in 2012 then republican, The repubs held the House. This and Democratic presidential candidates winning 5 of the last 6 popular votes but only 4 of the last 6 elections as a republican the trend does not look good. I guess if I were a repub. strategists I would try to get more Americans to vote for repubs somehow or keep the ones who vote against repubs from voting.


Fair point. Miss ya round here mate!

Not to one-up ya, but the new process is stacking red states/cities/districts with illegal aliens that the Federal government who placed them there does not have to tell the mayor or the governor they did so.


believe it or not thats the first time I heard that..is it really just red states? no blue states at all? Because if its just red states I do see why that would seem suspicious. GW Bush did well with the latino vote it was'nt until all the wall talk on the boarder that repubs started doing poorly with that group..give the Latino's a reason to vote for Repubs and they probably will. I am saying in a round about way that it is not guaranteed that if illegals are given a pass to citizenship that they will only vote democratic. Unless Repubs give them no other choice.
Image
User avatar
Captain ooge
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby danfrank666 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:52 pm

I have read none of the thread. My point is simply this , the abuse of the executive power as outlined by the media is bullshit , i think some have stated the abuse pertains to the corporate mandate until 2015 and some shit about funding for the children as they fly over mexico and cross our border . Well that simply is not the case , although he may have used executive powers in those 2 instances those are far from the abuse as i understand. The executive power abuse occurs when martial law is declared. Read up on it.
User avatar
Cadet danfrank666
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby tzor on Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:24 am

DaGip wrote:My opinion is this: Boehner and his conservative constituents realize they have been viewed as weak and mamby-pamby on their stance against Obama and the liberals. Therefor, Republicans feel they will be losing a few jobs this coming election, so they have to look like they are fighting Obama. This is no more than a political stunt that will lead to absolutely nothing. Matter of fact, it makes the Republicans look scared and weak.


Say all you want about Obama, but one thing is a known fact; Obama Pwned the Clintons. He is a master of the "Chicago" style of politics. Boehner, who is Speaker only because of seniority in the party going up the ranks, is absolutely inferior to Obama in terms of dirty politics. More over, he has the annoying tendency to take the weapons he does have at his disposal and deliberately declare them to be off the table.

Congress has the power of the purse, but he has already said he will never use that.
Congress has the power of impeachment, but he has already taken that off the table.
Congress has no power to sue (it's really hard to make a case of "standing" here) but that is what he puts on the table.

Personally, I think the best tool is impeachment. Obviously not an actual impeachment because it will fail in the Senate, but the case for impeachment. It's important to note that when Nixon got into trouble a lot or members of his own party were calling for impeachment. I think if you were to make a strong case to split the members of the Democratic party still aligned with the Clintons, from the wing loyal to Obama, then things would start to get interesting.

I mean really ... President Warren? I know Hillary can't campaign herself out of a paper bag, but right now, she's their party's only hope.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby DaGip on Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:39 am

tzor wrote:I know Hillary can't campaign herself out of a paper bag, but right now, she's their party's only hope.
Actually, all Obama needs is to start World War 3 and declare martial law and he will be emperor for an indefinite period of time.
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DaGip
 
Posts: 4027
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:48 am
Location: Watertown, South Dakota

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:22 pm

DaGip wrote:
patches70 wrote:
DaGip wrote: Thumbs up! =D> Boehner is trying to salvage what little dignity he holds at his job amidst his colleagues and conservative peers. The lawsuit does nothing except try an attempt at saving his and his buddies political careers. The Republicans have been highjacked by the Tea Party, and the Tea Party runs shit now! Boehner is pro-establishment, while his base is bent on ultra-conservatism. The Purge will begin soon and established Republicans will begin losing their jobs to Tea Party nut cases. OMFG! The Democrats and their Socialistic agenda are going to remain in power a long, long time!



You can clap all you want but you'd be wrong if you think the Democrats are immune from this. There is a reason so many democrats distance themselves around election time from progressive policies. Cause if they actually say what they really think then they'll be tossed out of office as well. Ultra conservative, ultra progressive, doesn't matter, they are all nutcases as you put it.

But the American people routinely put these types out of office when the politicians overstep. What the real story is is that Congress has slowly but surely been giving up their Constitutional powers and responsibilities for some time now. That's all well and good so long as those who take those powers are doing what you like, but the pendulum always swings and in due time there will be someone not to your liking doing things they shouldn't with powers they shouldn't have.

Then you'll be up a shit creek cause you were cheerleading the whole time while it was "your guy" doing the stuff. You won't have a leg to stand on when it's the "other side" in the position of power.


Then what will you do?
Probably riot in the streets considering your crazy rhetoric (parody) through the various threads. Luckily, I don't think you actually believe half the stuff you spew so it makes me chuckle, but there are crazies out there that actually think like you parody.

Meh. It is what it is I guess. Nothing but fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out. Then the real fun begins!


The more the socialist agenda succeeds, the closer the world will be to Utopia and the age of corporate greed and hording wealth will be over. Your dollar will be worthless and the wealthy will flee this land like the fucking cowards they are. They use over taxation as the reasoning behind turning their backs on their country, but that is total bullshit. It has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with them being cowards. Meanwhile, the middle class and the impoverished can't move to Belize, Shanghai, or Hong Kong...they have to stay here and pay the taxes that the RICH REFUSE to pay! Fucking COWARDS! I hate every last one of them! Let 'em run. Let 'em hide their little meaningless treasures in some obscure offshore bank, but they will be branded as treasonous betrayers of the state.

When it comes to the "nut cases" of which we speak, I am indeed embraced to the more liberal end. My vision of the world not only incorporates humans, but also machines (and combinations thereof). Laws must be made to encompass this quickly approaching reality. When machines finally begin their "age" of existence, ours will decline. How exactly will humans fit in with cyborgs and robots that are faster, smarter, stronger than themselves? Do you begin to give them citizenship? If they decide to just take over the world, how would we stop them? Capitalism has everything to benefit from robotic machines; however, of what benefit is capitalism to a machine? It isn't. Computers aren't Capitalists! Socialism is of better use to robots; and moreover, communism fits the bill quite well for a world ruled by machines. I think you would agree with that, but in a much different light. You too would consider Socialists and Commies to be "robots" of the state, doing their overlords will; whereas I am of the belief that the world literally will succumb to machines because of capitalism and the planet's citizenship will indeed be cybernetic in nature. When that day arises, there will be no more human workers. If you no longer have a working class, you will no longer have a spending class. So who will buy the products the wealthy business person is trying to sell? Eventually nobody. Will the business person just make widgets for nothing? No. His learned state of human existence will experience dissonance as it begins to realize it's true nature and potential on the planet. Dissonance is what the Tea Party people are experiencing right now, a change has happened in their country and they are struggling with both reality and their utter denial that the country has changed in both politics at home and upon the world theater. It ain't going back to the "good ol' days", we are staying the course and following our Northern Star. You can bail ship if you want with the rest of the cowards, but as for me...I'm stickin' behind our president.

And I would never riot. I don't have time, because I have to work to pay all those taxes the rich fuckers are skirting around. But all this future speculation still doesn't disregard the fact that Boehner's lawsuit is a meaningless political ploy. It will amount to nothing and go absolutely nowhere.


You're so full of shit.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:34 am

BS indeed. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay virtually no taxes.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby DaGip on Sat Aug 02, 2014 5:17 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
DaGip wrote:
patches70 wrote:
DaGip wrote: Thumbs up! =D> Boehner is trying to salvage what little dignity he holds at his job amidst his colleagues and conservative peers. The lawsuit does nothing except try an attempt at saving his and his buddies political careers. The Republicans have been highjacked by the Tea Party, and the Tea Party runs shit now! Boehner is pro-establishment, while his base is bent on ultra-conservatism. The Purge will begin soon and established Republicans will begin losing their jobs to Tea Party nut cases. OMFG! The Democrats and their Socialistic agenda are going to remain in power a long, long time!



You can clap all you want but you'd be wrong if you think the Democrats are immune from this. There is a reason so many democrats distance themselves around election time from progressive policies. Cause if they actually say what they really think then they'll be tossed out of office as well. Ultra conservative, ultra progressive, doesn't matter, they are all nutcases as you put it.

But the American people routinely put these types out of office when the politicians overstep. What the real story is is that Congress has slowly but surely been giving up their Constitutional powers and responsibilities for some time now. That's all well and good so long as those who take those powers are doing what you like, but the pendulum always swings and in due time there will be someone not to your liking doing things they shouldn't with powers they shouldn't have.

Then you'll be up a shit creek cause you were cheerleading the whole time while it was "your guy" doing the stuff. You won't have a leg to stand on when it's the "other side" in the position of power.


Then what will you do?
Probably riot in the streets considering your crazy rhetoric (parody) through the various threads. Luckily, I don't think you actually believe half the stuff you spew so it makes me chuckle, but there are crazies out there that actually think like you parody.

Meh. It is what it is I guess. Nothing but fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out. Then the real fun begins!


The more the socialist agenda succeeds, the closer the world will be to Utopia and the age of corporate greed and hording wealth will be over. Your dollar will be worthless and the wealthy will flee this land like the fucking cowards they are. They use over taxation as the reasoning behind turning their backs on their country, but that is total bullshit. It has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with them being cowards. Meanwhile, the middle class and the impoverished can't move to Belize, Shanghai, or Hong Kong...they have to stay here and pay the taxes that the RICH REFUSE to pay! Fucking COWARDS! I hate every last one of them! Let 'em run. Let 'em hide their little meaningless treasures in some obscure offshore bank, but they will be branded as treasonous betrayers of the state.

When it comes to the "nut cases" of which we speak, I am indeed embraced to the more liberal end. My vision of the world not only incorporates humans, but also machines (and combinations thereof). Laws must be made to encompass this quickly approaching reality. When machines finally begin their "age" of existence, ours will decline. How exactly will humans fit in with cyborgs and robots that are faster, smarter, stronger than themselves? Do you begin to give them citizenship? If they decide to just take over the world, how would we stop them? Capitalism has everything to benefit from robotic machines; however, of what benefit is capitalism to a machine? It isn't. Computers aren't Capitalists! Socialism is of better use to robots; and moreover, communism fits the bill quite well for a world ruled by machines. I think you would agree with that, but in a much different light. You too would consider Socialists and Commies to be "robots" of the state, doing their overlords will; whereas I am of the belief that the world literally will succumb to machines because of capitalism and the planet's citizenship will indeed be cybernetic in nature. When that day arises, there will be no more human workers. If you no longer have a working class, you will no longer have a spending class. So who will buy the products the wealthy business person is trying to sell? Eventually nobody. Will the business person just make widgets for nothing? No. His learned state of human existence will experience dissonance as it begins to realize it's true nature and potential on the planet. Dissonance is what the Tea Party people are experiencing right now, a change has happened in their country and they are struggling with both reality and their utter denial that the country has changed in both politics at home and upon the world theater. It ain't going back to the "good ol' days", we are staying the course and following our Northern Star. You can bail ship if you want with the rest of the cowards, but as for me...I'm stickin' behind our president.

And I would never riot. I don't have time, because I have to work to pay all those taxes the rich fuckers are skirting around. But all this future speculation still doesn't disregard the fact that Boehner's lawsuit is a meaningless political ploy. It will amount to nothing and go absolutely nowhere.


You're so full of shit.
Are we talking about Boehner's lawsuit being a meaningless political ploy, or that machines will take over the earth?
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DaGip
 
Posts: 4027
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:48 am
Location: Watertown, South Dakota

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:23 am

Not so fast, DaGimp. You and I both know that it's just another meaningless political ploy, but the machines have implanted mind-control devices into the lawyers, judges, and annoyed parties of the Boehner case.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby shickingbrits on Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:35 am

Phatscotty wrote:BS indeed. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay virtually no taxes.


Holy cow! The top 10% are making way too much money. We should spread some of that money around so we can tax all equally.
User avatar
Sergeant shickingbrits
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:09 am

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Aug 03, 2014 3:18 pm

shickingbrits wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:BS indeed. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay virtually no taxes.


Holy cow! The top 10% are making way too much money. We should spread some of that money around so we can tax all equally.



It IS being spread around! JESUS! That's why spreading the wealth is such an impossible fantasy...there is NEVER a point where the people are happy. Even if you get it all, there will still be pain and misery and suffering, there will still be death. There will still be people going without, there will still be poverty. It's universally true that spreading the wealth is the biggest form of greed in existence, because it's also true that no matter how much you spread around, it never seems to be enough,and you always cry MORE! MORE! MORE!

based on the fact the top 10% are paying for an overwhelming majority of everything? Gee whiz, I thought that might be enough. But that's the greedy, even when plenty more than their fair share is paid, it's just not enough. You need MORE! And then how can you justify your sense if injustice that the rich getting everything their way through the government, when they are the one's paying for it all? Doesn't it only makes sense that the people who pay for something are the one's that are gonna have the most influence on it? Politicians know who butters their bread and gives them money for elections, end of story. In fact, there is no real reason why the government would be interested in listening to you or representing you at all when you don't pay anything for government and the rich pay for everything. There is only the illusion 'it shouldn't be like that' but that doesn't hold a candle to "I'm the one paying for it, I should get more than zero in return' Because the rich pay for the overwhelming majority of everything, they are holding almost all the cards, yet you guys complain endlessly about the constant streak of shitty cards dealt to you. All the more reason not to have a morbidly obese government. The morbidly obese don't give a crap what anyone has to say when it comes to their uncontrollable hunger, power. Who is providing their lifeblood to that power? The rich....just like you demanded. Congrats, you've put all the responsibility on the rich people's backs, inadvertently fair sharing yourself out of significance, out of power to the point you don't even know how anything works, just that it does, so why should the people who make it work listen to you? They aren't going to.

You guys continually bet against human nature, thinking you can manipulate humans and paper things over and redistribute redistributions endlessly through such difficulty and brain busting legalese tax codes that nobody even knows what the hell is going on or what money goes where anymore or even why. You have some perverse faith that you can change what motivates humans, even against their own will, at the expense of what has worked so well and what we all know to be true, humans are the most productive and the most dependable and the most punctual and try the most and work to their potential when they work for themselves. You may feel that is greedy, but frankly your genuflected university and media engineered feelings on the matter do not change one iota of that universal truth about the endless opportunities people create for themselves and create other opportunities organically; when they are Free and they work for themselves and keep the fruits of their own labor.

I think you guys should practice what you preach when it comes to equality in all aspects, not just the ones where you benefit at someone else's expense and time and sacrifice. Like paying into the system as much as you practice taking out. The person who makes 10 billion dollars pays a billion into the pot. The person who makes 100,000 pays 10,000 into the pot, the person who makes 10 dollars put 1 dollar into the pot. What's unfair about that? How is that not perfectly equal treatment of all workers??

And then, of course, when you get every little thing you demand as a human right and there is no reason to work for yourself because the 10% you keep still allows you to go out to the movies still and eat out a few times and you can learn to accept that you'll never do anything more with your life, why in the heck would you work so hard? Why would a small stomach ache you used to ignore because you needed the money back when you worked for yourself prevent you from calling in and making it worse than it is? Why not just take the day off? And heck, if you didn't have a job you'd be covered anyways and still get about the same amount of what you are accustomed to, so why work? Sure, some people will, but can't you see how the average % will decrease when there really isn't anything in it for them? When the reason to work has virtually been replaced since everything important is taken care of? I already know plenty of people like that now, and we only pay taxes enough to pay for half of what our government spends. The % of people who don't understand why to work will increase, dramatically, which means the tax base will decrease, dramatically.

What about 'paying' your fair share for everybody else, the other 90%? That doesn't sound very fair that 9 out of 10 people get to use and benefit from things but barely have to pay for it. At least this is still a free country, and the top 10% cannot be forced to be your slave. I suppose you won't be happy until you drive all the rich people out of America, but only after you are done currently driving out all the job creating corporations first.


Build that wall baby! Economic patriotism! Scream your case for protecting our borders when it comes to feeling a pinch to your claim on other people's work and effort. Make a law that NOBODY and NO BUSINESS can leave America, because their earnings belong not to them, but to you! I don't get how people can't see the slavery of it all; and that those people are the same one's dominated and obsessed and guilted over slavery...Congrats, you are the new slave holders. you tell us where to work, and how long, stress to us that seeing and being there for our families is not really that big a deal, and how we are just lucky to be able to serve you, and how our dreams aren't realistic anymore, it's a total strangers dreams that is more important.

The only problem, the only obstacle for you guys, Freedom exists. Liberty exists. Guess it will all come down to what people are willing to die for; the right to an always increasing share of other people's money, or Freedom and Liberty.

From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to selfishness,
From selfishness to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back again to bondage
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:09 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby shickingbrits on Sun Aug 03, 2014 4:59 pm

Paris Hilton doesn't work a thousand times harder than others. I've seen porn stars putting in ten times her effort. According to your somewhat simplistic analysis, her "expense and time and sacrifice" is somehow greater than that of other peoples doing exactly the same thing but harder and longer.

I like how you have tried to change it around. It isn't Zuckerburg who needs more, it is the guy who worries about his bills each month. Out of the two, one has a necessity and the other a demon. Zuckerburg is feeling the drive of "freedom" and Joe Blow is motivated by all the base and vile desires to eat and give his family a semblance of normality.

What's unfair about that is known as discretionary income. Zuckerburg needs 1000 to live. Joe Blow needs 1000 to live. Zuckerburg has a surplus of 9,999,999,000. Joe Blow has a deficit of 900. How is Joe Blow to pay money he doesn't have?

He should work harder...but we only need so many doctors, only space for so many internet billionaires, only enough jobs to meet the work we need done. And that is only becoming more so. We have folks talking about the need to create a dialogue for co-existence with machinery.

You are demanding an unequal world and asking people to strive to fit your fanciful ideology rather than base your ideology on reality.
User avatar
Sergeant shickingbrits
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:09 am

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:11 pm

So, what's your solution, shickingbrits?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby shickingbrits on Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:26 pm

To Boehner's lawsuit? Don't mind either way.

To the income/taxation inequality? Complicated question. Those on welfare, to appease the Phatscottys of the world, require labour out of them. To the super-wealthy who aren't engaged in work, require labour out of them. To those fully engaged in work, ensure a reasonable standard of living. People shouldn't have to work full-time to not be able to feed/clothes themselves to a reasonable standard. And that goes for families that have 28 kids as well. It's not like we couldn't use the people.
User avatar
Sergeant shickingbrits
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:09 am

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:31 pm

So, you want make-work programs, and an unknown minimum standard of living that will be subsidized if it's not met (?), but you don't want any free handouts?

And non-working people of some 'high' income would be required to work? That's pretty easy to get around. For example, if you inherited $20 million, you can work as an employer as you hire a financial manager, an accountant, three gardeners, two nannies, and your own personal ice cream truck.

Besides, much of that money created jobs and has provided opportunities to whatever businesses that were funded through purchasing securities, so what's wrong with having 'too much' wealth anyway?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:20 am

shickingbrits wrote:Paris Hilton doesn't work a thousand times harder than others. I've seen porn stars putting in ten times her effort. According to your somewhat simplistic analysis, her "expense and time and sacrifice" is somehow greater than that of other peoples doing exactly the same thing but harder and longer.

I like how you have tried to change it around. It isn't Zuckerburg who needs more, it is the guy who worries about his bills each month. Out of the two, one has a necessity and the other a demon. Zuckerburg is feeling the drive of "freedom" and Joe Blow is motivated by all the base and vile desires to eat and give his family a semblance of normality.

What's unfair about that is known as discretionary income. Zuckerburg needs 1000 to live. Joe Blow needs 1000 to live. Zuckerburg has a surplus of 9,999,999,000. Joe Blow has a deficit of 900. How is Joe Blow to pay money he doesn't have?

He should work harder...but we only need so many doctors, only space for so many internet billionaires, only enough jobs to meet the work we need done. And that is only becoming more so. We have folks talking about the need to create a dialogue for co-existence with machinery.

You are demanding an unequal world and asking people to strive to fit your fanciful ideology rather than base your ideology on reality.


Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealthā€“the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.


If you are gonna go with the cherry picked Paris Hilton standard to judge all Americans on, then I will bet you don't have a problem if I cherrypick Steve Jobs as the standard which to judge the work and efforts of all Americans?
hmmmmmm


Check out this educational video. It breaks down the concept of wealth creation a simple as it can be broken down. It goes back to the first person who invented a better basket, and what happened after that. The person created more baskets, and traded with the nearby tribe who happened to have better spears. After a bit, everyone in both tribes had better baskets, everyone in both tribes had better spears. EVERYONE was richer, and it was all voluntary; everyone's quality of life increased and everyone was happier as well.



On Paris Hilton... That is being able to leave behind something for your children. Of course some have more than others, the very essence of the land of the Free is that we are not Socilaists making sure everyone is equally poor. To each their own, it's by far the best way without trampling others people's rights and putting our wants and needs ahead of a strangers wants and needs. Guarantee you what is a want for one person and that person can totally do without, another person will tell you it's a need and they will turn to crime if they can't get it. So how about each person do what they want? If you want to work hard and invent something that makes billions of people around the world happier or work better or makes life easier, odds are you are going to leave a lot behind, and then in your version everyone else gets to come and take it from you, because according to their version of fairness....IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK RICH PIG!! So who is going to want to become wealthy?? After a while, there won't be any wealth to plunder, it will be gone or the wealthy will be gone...then what? And when that money is redistributed, and it's all gone...then what? onto plundering the next village I think! and you should earn a lot of money if you earned it, because if you get no reward for your major accomplishment, I would bet you would never have pushed yourself to do what you did, there would be no motivation for anyone to accomplish anything. You think that really makes the world a better place? More fair and equal, sure, we'd all be equally poor and living in mud huts. Why would anyone build a better house? Why would anyone seek an education? Because under your version, that goes for EVERYBODY, nobody will do anything without motivation or a reason, the world would have never changed from the historic concept that wealth only came by sacking neighbors or begging or befriending royalty or whoring. If you don't want to work at all and you want to sponge off the system and spend all your money on yourself and leave nothing for your children, that's on you too. Otherwise you argue that there should be no consequences for your own actions? Yeah, like that will never work against you when it comes to everyone else who also faces no consequences for their actions against you?

You do not have the right to tell other people how to live and what to do, if you did, others would have the right to tell you what you can and can't do, what you can and can't eat, how much money you will or won't be paid. understand that's a two way street, and you are not the dictator. That's why it's best we mind our own business, or else other people are going to mind yours. I bet your attitude would change if that happened. If not, I have plenty of work over here I would like you do to for no money, and you'll do it because obviously in your scenario there can be no such thing as rights, and I have all the guns, and we are back to the old world of slavery and rule by force eh? I prefer voluntary exchange, value for value. Live and let live.

Freedom is not a fanciful ideology mate, it's a way of life. You demand that the world be equal? Why doyou get to tell people how hard to work? Why don't I get to tell you how hard to work? Who's gonna decide that? Why? You think there aren't 7 billion different opinions on what is equal??? 7 billion different opinions on what is fair? Why is your vision the one that is true? Oh, yeah, break out the guns and make it your version. I'm sure only the people with hearts of gold will end up on top. More likely you will have a world of Al Capones and Tony Montanas on top.

:sick:
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby shickingbrits on Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:01 am

Wealth is relative, as you pointed out in your village example.

I don't have the right to tell people what to do, but I do have the right to protect myself. A society which has extreme wealth by definition has extreme poverty as well. If through hard work or education, the wealth is not available to you, then resentment festers. If the poverty is so extreme that basic needs can't be met by legitimate means then it will be acquired through illegal methods.

Do I want to live in a place with many homeless, hungry and naked individuals? Not really, because I wouldn't feel safe or proud, instead it would be inhospitable and dangerous. We assuage this by using hand-outs.

When a guy writes a piece of software that allows everyone to do their own accounting at 1% of my salary, I will be out of a job. Did I not work hard to become an accountant? Did I not work hard as an accountant? Am I not willing to continue to work hard as an accountant?

Were the world up to you, then I would be a homeless, hungry and eventually naked individual looking for a job without skills in a market that has just been flooded by millions of others just like me. My wife, kids and dog would have become lyrics to a country song. Where will I direct my anger? To the programmer who is getting 1% of my former salary, to the millions of competitors looking for jobs, to the plumber nailing my ex, to the society which has left me stranded, or to the guy in the batman suit making a withdrawal?

The alternate is to provide me with handouts. The handouts would have me living similar to a minimum wage existence. It would deprive me of an incentive to refine my skills. Why bother seeking a job with millions of competitors to be in a position no better than I am in? I could retrain, but I'm still paying off my student loan for accounting and have lost faith in the system.

Neither society is very appealing. Bands of enraged hoodlums or throngs of apathetic has beens or never weres is not an ideal.

Warren Buffet said that he would only leave a bit of his wealth to his children as he didn't want them to be wealthy beyond the need to work. Perhaps you understand wealth better than him.

You seem very angry and yet my "solution" attempted to deal with the reality of the situation and assuage your discomfort with handouts. Bigballinstalin says I seek to create work programs. We already do. We give Boeing contracts, open prisons in downtrodden districts and subsidize farmers. When we hire 700 prison guards in Topeka, we create 5000 jobs in restaurants, stores, daycares, construction, etc.

If, for my handout, I was required to clean graffiti of walls, then it wouldn't be a handout and I would have an incentive to better myself. If, instead of being hungry, homeless, naked and alone, I was cleaning graffiti and could keep my wife, kids and dog, many future social issues could be averted. If the rich were required to do the same, which they could easily manage by being employers, then perhaps I would have private funding for cleaning the graffiti.

Is there no cost on society from poverty? If there is a cost, which is preferred: to engage the poor in society's well-being, to create an apathetic class, or to spend on security that such a society would demand?
User avatar
Sergeant shickingbrits
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:09 am

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:14 am

DaGip wrote:
patches70 wrote:
DaGip wrote: Thumbs up! =D> Boehner is trying to salvage what little dignity he holds at his job amidst his colleagues and conservative peers. The lawsuit does nothing except try an attempt at saving his and his buddies political careers. The Republicans have been highjacked by the Tea Party, and the Tea Party runs shit now! Boehner is pro-establishment, while his base is bent on ultra-conservatism. The Purge will begin soon and established Republicans will begin losing their jobs to Tea Party nut cases. OMFG! The Democrats and their Socialistic agenda are going to remain in power a long, long time!



You can clap all you want but you'd be wrong if you think the Democrats are immune from this. There is a reason so many democrats distance themselves around election time from progressive policies. Cause if they actually say what they really think then they'll be tossed out of office as well. Ultra conservative, ultra progressive, doesn't matter, they are all nutcases as you put it.

But the American people routinely put these types out of office when the politicians overstep. What the real story is is that Congress has slowly but surely been giving up their Constitutional powers and responsibilities for some time now. That's all well and good so long as those who take those powers are doing what you like, but the pendulum always swings and in due time there will be someone not to your liking doing things they shouldn't with powers they shouldn't have.

Then you'll be up a shit creek cause you were cheerleading the whole time while it was "your guy" doing the stuff. You won't have a leg to stand on when it's the "other side" in the position of power.


Then what will you do?
Probably riot in the streets considering your crazy rhetoric (parody) through the various threads. Luckily, I don't think you actually believe half the stuff you spew so it makes me chuckle, but there are crazies out there that actually think like you parody.

Meh. It is what it is I guess. Nothing but fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out. Then the real fun begins!


The more the socialist agenda succeeds, the closer the world will be to Utopia and the age of corporate greed and hording wealth will be over. Your dollar will be worthless and the wealthy will flee this land like the fucking cowards they are. They use over taxation as the reasoning behind turning their backs on their country, but that is total bullshit. It has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with them being cowards. Meanwhile, the middle class and the impoverished can't move to Belize, Shanghai, or Hong Kong...they have to stay here and pay the taxes that the RICH REFUSE to pay! Fucking COWARDS! I hate every last one of them! Let 'em run. Let 'em hide their little meaningless treasures in some obscure offshore bank, but they will be branded as treasonous betrayers of the state.

When it comes to the "nut cases" of which we speak, I am indeed embraced to the more liberal end. My vision of the world not only incorporates humans, but also machines (and combinations thereof). Laws must be made to encompass this quickly approaching reality. When machines finally begin their "age" of existence, ours will decline. How exactly will humans fit in with cyborgs and robots that are faster, smarter, stronger than themselves? Do you begin to give them citizenship? If they decide to just take over the world, how would we stop them? Capitalism has everything to benefit from robotic machines; however, of what benefit is capitalism to a machine? It isn't. Computers aren't Capitalists! Socialism is of better use to robots; and moreover, communism fits the bill quite well for a world ruled by machines. I think you would agree with that, but in a much different light. You too would consider Socialists and Commies to be "robots" of the state, doing their overlords will; whereas I am of the belief that the world literally will succumb to machines because of capitalism and the planet's citizenship will indeed be cybernetic in nature. When that day arises, there will be no more human workers. If you no longer have a working class, you will no longer have a spending class. So who will buy the products the wealthy business person is trying to sell? Eventually nobody. Will the business person just make widgets for nothing? No. His learned state of human existence will experience dissonance as it begins to realize it's true nature and potential on the planet. Dissonance is what the Tea Party people are experiencing right now, a change has happened in their country and they are struggling with both reality and their utter denial that the country has changed in both politics at home and upon the world theater. It ain't going back to the "good ol' days", we are staying the course and following our Northern Star. You can bail ship if you want with the rest of the cowards, but as for me...I'm stickin' behind our president.

And I would never riot. I don't have time, because I have to work to pay all those taxes the rich fuckers are skirting around. But all this future speculation still doesn't disregard the fact that Boehner's lawsuit is a meaningless political ploy. It will amount to nothing and go absolutely nowhere.


Yeah, its basically a new monarchy... Too bad folks don't remember that monarchies came FROM a period of relative individual freedom.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby Dukasaur on Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:19 am

I don't care much about American politics, but I think Boehner is a wonderful name. I wonder if he ever stuck it to Bush?
User avatar
Captain Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 25031
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
22

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:35 pm

shickingbrits wrote:Wealth is relative, as you pointed out in your village example.

I don't have the right to tell people what to do, but I do have the right to protect myself. A society which has extreme wealth by definition has extreme poverty as well. If through hard work or education, the wealth is not available to you, then resentment festers. If the poverty is so extreme that basic needs can't be met by legitimate means then it will be acquired through illegal methods.

Do I want to live in a place with many homeless, hungry and naked individuals? Not really, because I wouldn't feel safe or proud, instead it would be inhospitable and dangerous. We assuage this by using hand-outs.

When a guy writes a piece of software that allows everyone to do their own accounting at 1% of my salary, I will be out of a job. Did I not work hard to become an accountant? Did I not work hard as an accountant? Am I not willing to continue to work hard as an accountant?

Were the world up to you, then I would be a homeless, hungry and eventually naked individual looking for a job without skills in a market that has just been flooded by millions of others just like me. My wife, kids and dog would have become lyrics to a country song. Where will I direct my anger? To the programmer who is getting 1% of my former salary, to the millions of competitors looking for jobs, to the plumber nailing my ex, to the society which has left me stranded, or to the guy in the batman suit making a withdrawal?

The alternate is to provide me with handouts. The handouts would have me living similar to a minimum wage existence. It would deprive me of an incentive to refine my skills. Why bother seeking a job with millions of competitors to be in a position no better than I am in? I could retrain, but I'm still paying off my student loan for accounting and have lost faith in the system.

Neither society is very appealing. Bands of enraged hoodlums or throngs of apathetic has beens or never weres is not an ideal.

Warren Buffet said that he would only leave a bit of his wealth to his children as he didn't want them to be wealthy beyond the need to work. Perhaps you understand wealth better than him.

You seem very angry and yet my "solution" attempted to deal with the reality of the situation and assuage your discomfort with handouts. Bigballinstalin says I seek to create work programs. We already do. We give Boeing contracts, open prisons in downtrodden districts and subsidize farmers. When we hire 700 prison guards in Topeka, we create 5000 jobs in restaurants, stores, daycares, construction, etc.

If, for my handout, I was required to clean graffiti of walls, then it wouldn't be a handout and I would have an incentive to better myself. If, instead of being hungry, homeless, naked and alone, I was cleaning graffiti and could keep my wife, kids and dog, many future social issues could be averted. If the rich were required to do the same, which they could easily manage by being employers, then perhaps I would have private funding for cleaning the graffiti.

Is there no cost on society from poverty? If there is a cost, which is preferred: to engage the poor in society's well-being, to create an apathetic class, or to spend on security that such a society would demand?


Nah, I'm not angry. I guess I just wasn't willing to give you credit until I saw better posting, like this. I like your style, seem honest. Can't respond tonight, just wanted to say.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Boehner's Lawsuit

Postby patches70 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:22 am

Not a bad post, you make some decent arguments. A couple of thoughts though?


shickingbrits wrote:Wealth is relative, as you pointed out in your village example.



When a guy writes a piece of software that allows everyone to do their own accounting at 1% of my salary, I will be out of a job. Did I not work hard to become an accountant? Did I not work hard as an accountant? Am I not willing to continue to work hard as an accountant?


This isn't something new. There were people who made great horse and buggy buggies. And when the automobile took overthose companies died and people lost their jobs. And the very last horse and buggy manufacturing company probably made the best damn buggies the world had ever seen.

But it doesn't matter, because their business was dead. Life, death, just the natural order of things. If we refused to innovate, to make more efficient and cheaper ways of making and doing things just to save people from losing their jobs, well, we'd still be living in caves, chopping wood all day everyday until we fell over dead at 40 years old.

But I'd feel for ya! Certainly I would.

shickingbrits wrote:
The alternate is to provide me with handouts.


Is that the only alternative? I bet if we put our heads together we'd be able to come up with other alternatives. But Ok, lets roll with this for a minute.


shickingbrits wrote:Warren Buffet said that he would only leave a bit of his wealth to his children as he didn't want them to be wealthy beyond the need to work. Perhaps you understand wealth better than him.


Yeah, ummm...Warren Buffet isn't really a good example. So, do you think Warren Buffet is going to give the rest of his "wealth" to you? Doesn't matter.


shickingbrits wrote:If, for my handout, I was required to clean graffiti of walls, then it wouldn't be a handout and I would have an incentive to better myself. If, instead of being hungry, homeless, naked and alone, I was cleaning graffiti and could keep my wife, kids and dog, many future social issues could be averted.


See, you are getting into the broken window fallacy here. Handouts are fine. If you have excess and you wish to just hand out that excess to whomever, more power to you.

But by handouts you are talking about government welfare. Or I assume. And that's fine as well. But let me ask you something.

We'll use you as an example. You haven't lost your job, your wife isn't banging the milk man and your dog hasn't run away. You see some poor schmuck and you decide to give him a handout. So, you break out one of your credit cards that you haven't quite maxed out yet and you get some cash for a handout. Hell, you can even say "Mow my lawn for this handout".

Except, your "handout" was given on credit. It wasn't from excess you have saved. There in is the problem. That's a different animal don't you think? If you had to break out your credit card to provide the handout, then you've only made yourself poorer and haven't changed that poor schmuck's overall position at all. Sure, he won't go hungry that day, but what about tomorrow? How long can you keep going into debt before the day comes when you tell the schmuck "Sorry man, I can't help you today".? And then, to make matters worse, the schmuck has come to rely on you. When you pull the rug out from under him he gets pissed, at you!

Now we take the government, which is running trillion $ deficits for years, over $17 trillion in debt, in ten years we'll be paying $1 trillion just in interest on the debt we've accrued! we can see that our "handouts" are not handing out from what we have saved, but we are handing out our future labor. When the time comes when we say "Sorry man, can't help you out today" it's too late because we've already given up the rest of our labors until the day we die to pay off the handouts we've been making for all those years!




shickingbrits wrote: If the rich were required to do the same,


Whoa now! Didn't you say-
shickingbrits wrote:I don't have the right to tell people what to do


Apparently you do!

shickingbrits wrote: which they could easily manage by being employers,


I can safely say that you can figure out what you can manage for yourself. Do you think I can figure out what you can manage?


shickingbrits wrote: then perhaps I would have private funding for cleaning the graffiti.


Now that is all right by me! Private funding, sure! That I can dig. Of course, you cleaning graffiti has to be able to generate some sort of revenue if you want it to continue. Can you dig me?

Let's say you have $1,000. That's your starting bankroll for your new private business. You are going to hire people to go clean graffiti off the walls. So after the first week you have spent $200 of your bankroll so now you have $800. If the graffiti cleaning doesn't generate some sort of revenue to replace your bankroll, how long are you going to be able to afford to keep hiring people to clean graffiti? Four more weeks by my calculation, then you are dead broke and you'll be hoping someone will hire you to clean graffiti.

Or, you could take that $1,000, and instead of using Keynesian principles of just having people dig holes, you could invest that money into something like an oven, flour, sugar and other such ingredients and hire people to bake cakes. Sell the cakes and make a profit. You can part of that profit for yourself, because after all you have a house, a wife and a dog to take care of, and you can use the rest of the profits to expand. Buy another oven, hire some more workers, bake more cakes.

But the key difference here is, that without the profit you are just digging a hole for yourself and everyone around you. Yes those evil profits that if you succeed not only will you be employing people with something other than handouts, you will become filthy rich. You keep expanding, getting bigger, buying other bakeries as you expand until you have built a massive corporation employing ten's of thousands of people and you will become one of those hated, evil rich people.

For every penny someone else makes you give on handouts instead of profit generating endeavors-

shickingbrits wrote:If the rich were required to do the same


Are dollars you can't use to expand your business, hire more people to produce goods that others desire. When you sell a cake it's win win for both buyer and seller. The seller is happy with the price, for if he wasn't he wouldn't have sold it. And the buyer is happy with the price, for if he wasn't he wouldn't have bought it. The buyer values that cake enough to pay the money he earned.

And hopefully, if everything is functioning right, the buyer who purchased the cake got his money from doing something that created value, brought profit.


We can only give if we have savings from which to draw upon. To give without having the actually money, i.e. go into debt, is not only unwise but it's foolish and is a path to ruin. This is true with individuals and with governments.



shickingbrits wrote:Is there no cost on society from poverty? If there is a cost, which is preferred: to engage the poor in society's well-being, to create an apathetic class, or to spend on security that such a society would demand?


Now don't get me wrong, there are some greedy, shady Mf'ers out there, bankers come to mind. Investment traders, people like Warren Buffet and such and especially politicians who are the worst of the bunch.
Politicians have a vested interest in making sure there are people in poverty. Does that strike you as shocking? Or unbelievable? There are people who make their living off the poor and politicians are some of the worst. For politicians strive on there being problems, it's how they get elected by promising to fix those problems. And if there are no problems, then you can be damn sure that politicians will create some, to get elected. Government is the last place we should be looking to "solve" these problems. There are no solutions, only trade offs.

So, what are we willing to trade to get rid of poverty? Maybe, giving up your freedom? Would that be a good price to get rid of poverty? If everyone was a slave, given a job, fed by their overlords, would not poverty disappear or theoretically disappear? Maybe a war. Make everyone who isn't working a soldier, send them over to some land to fight, kill and die?

Order everyone can only make but "X" amount of money? But then when people reach that limit, what incentive would they have to continue working providing goods and services?
We could make a whole huge list of things, but it always comes down to the bayonet, doesn't it? "Do this or else!"

This is how the sought after Utopia turns Dystopian. Always with the best intentions of course, but it always goes bad because we ignore or don't consider the trade offs.

Trade offs, my friend, it's all about the trade offs.


Anyway, here's to hoping you don't lose your job as an accountant. Oh, and I'm not trying to diss you, but this made me chuckle-

shickingbrits wrote: but I'm still paying off my student loan for accounting



It's a bad idea to go into debt. Even for a college education. But hey, people justify it be saying "It's an investment!" and forget, investments imply risk. If one misprices risk, which often happens a lot when it comes to student loan debt, then things get ugly.


shickingbrits wrote: Where will I direct my anger?


This brought something to my mind. In another thread there were a couple of forumers discussing what kind of questions it's ok to ask. Your comment here made me remember something.

There are two fellows sitting and watching the news. In a city there was a city wide power outage. This happened in the mid morning, broad daylight. By noon there were riots and looting in the streets.
The first guys says- "Wow! It's only been a couple of hours and everyone is going crazy already, why are they doing this?"

The second guys replies-" You are asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is how many people are just waiting for something like a power outage so they can go out looting."

And the first guy had a new understanding, just by changing the nature of the question. Oh yes, shickingbrits, where indeed will you direct your anger? Handouts aren't going to help that, only true wealth production which means creating profits. And profits doesn't necessarily mean money per say, only that it's money in which that wealth is measured. Money itself isn't wealth at all. And that's why handouts on credit isn't creating wealth, it's destroying it by using up future resources, productivity and labors today. Then tomorrow comes and we find ourselves lacking what we need because we've already used it yesterday.


Trade offs.
Sorry for the long post, if you made it this far, kudos to you!
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron