namelesstavern.net

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:54 pm**

What part? Do you think the government does have a right to take from one group to give to another? My guiding principle here is, again, individualism. People are free to live their lives as they please so long as they do not infringe upon others' ability to do the same. This means that people have the freedom to form collective groups, and allow that group to act as a whole on their behalf. However, no group, no matter the size, has the right to limit or disrupt the rights of any one individual. This principle extends to government, and is also the basis of our constitutional republic, which was intended to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

If you think our economy would not have a better foundation without government subsidization, then that is a little tougher for me to explain.

What do you suppose would happen to our post secondary education system if student loans and financial aid did not exist? I suggest that far fewer people would be attending college at what it costs today. This would put a lot of downward pressure on tuition, because colleges are businesses and they don't like empty classrooms. It would force them to become more efficient and competitive.

From a student's perspective, suddenly he isn't getting free money from the government, he is paying for it himself, so he becomes much more concerned with the quality of the education, as well as what he is majoring in. Does he go for a worthless easy sociology degree and spend four years partying? Or maybe something a bit more likely to pay off in the long run?

Think about that from the other side, with government grants and loans. Everyone can go to college, and a lot of people can go without paying a dime out of pocket. Colleges are well aware of that fact, and as such, they can get away with ever-increasing tuition costs. Not only that, but I know for a fact that colleges intentionally dumb down certain curriculums to keep students progressing through them. When they talk of expanding a program, it is usually by making it easier/more accessible than by making it more rigorous where the education gained is more valuable and of far more benefit to those students who do make it through.

Bottom line, colleges are businesses and the government drastically changes how supply and demand works for it. The result is poorer quality, inefficiency, and higher costs. I have no doubt that it was well intended to send everyone to college, thinking it would make the work force more intelligent and productive as a whole, but what it ended up doing was dumbing down college for the masses and making our education system continue to lag behind much of the rest of the world. There are a lot of people that go to college and shouldn't be there. They would be far better off in a trade school, or working their way up.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:18 pm**

OMFG WILL YOU PLEASE STOP USING OBNOXIOUS ANIMATED THINGIES AS YOUR AVATAR AND SIGNATURE YOU ARE MAKING ME STABBY JESUS LORD IN HEAVEN. FUUUUUUCK.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:23 pm**

leah has a gnome in her pants teehee

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:28 pm**

KaiineTN wrote:It most certainly does not have the right to tax you more than me, and then use that money to fund my education, or health care, or housing, or unemployment benefits.

It does

KaiineTN wrote:Not only is it unethical to take from one group to give to another

It isn't

KaiineTN wrote:but our economy would have a much better foundation without such government subsidization.

It wouldn't

...brevity, bitch.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:16 pm**

man flink is the biggest troll on the board now, wtf

but it's worse than mindia ever was because he doesn't even have a personality, he just regurgitates political and financial shorttalk. post secondary education system? what in thee fuck are you even talking about dude

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:47 pm**

I must be some sort of robotic super troll because you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I talk politics and economics. I have a substantial interest in those subjects because I deal with them in day to day life.

You don't see my personality because I don't allow myself to be trolled and provoked into emotional responses by people like yourself attacking me personally rather than the contents of the post.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:57 pm**

If you don't see how the corporate citizen and the rich infringe on the rights of the individual, there really isn't much point in discussing anything with you. The more power they have, the less power YOU, the individual have. They can, will and do enslave, rape, pillage and even kill in the name of profit, every single day worldwide.

You'd rather just skip the whole political process and have whichever company can afford it, just buy the country and run it like a corporation?

Without balance, the result is the same on either spectrum. Either everything is owned by a single, giant corporation or everything is run by a single all powerful government. Either situation sucks. Each serve a purpose and should help to keep each other in check.

The balance has shifted dramatically towards a corporate run government in the last 30 years and it's scary as fuck.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:26 pm**

KaiineTN wrote:I must be some sort of robotic super troll because you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I talk politics and economics. I have a substantial interest in those subjects because I deal with them in day to day life.

You don't see my personality because I don't allow myself to be trolled and provoked into emotional responses by people like yourself attacking me personally rather than the contents of the post.

i don't care what you do from day to day, because you straight-up won't tell us. i think it's hilarious and as such, i, and i imagine no one else here, will ever take anything you say seriously

robot

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:32 pm**

No we wont. That guys a clown. I also think everything he says looks cut and pasted from ron paul sites.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:37 pm**

I agree, things have shifted towards corporatism, and that is a very bad thing. Also, all too often people mistakenly think corporatism is free market capitalism. Far, far from the truth.

I believe we can remove corporate influence from government without a "single all powerful government" which would probably just be prone to corruption via corporate sponsored politicians anyways...

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:58 pm**

So

What do you do for a living Flink?

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:16 pm**

Flink, youd make it so much easier on yourself if youd just post something about where you infinite knowledge on business comes from. Reading how to books on business doesnt make you a businessman. The fuck do you mean you deal with it on a day to day basis? Reading blogs and shit on here? That doesnt count. Dealing with it on a day to day basis means you work in it day to day, and thus far you havent said a word as to what you do, and I think thats hilarious. McDonalds would be a better answer than what you give. Hell admitting you are a trust fund baby and dont do jackshit would be a better answer

You know I stay out of this political bullshit almost all the time, and im not getting in it, so....

Flink, what do you do for a living? And not in a personal attack way, but god are you that embarrassed of it?

Posted: **Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:48 am**

KaiineTN wrote:I must be some sort of robotic super troll because you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I talk politics and economics. I have a substantial interest in those subjects because I deal with them in day to day life.

You are arguing for free markets and capitalism with Canadians and liberals.

For an encore, why not wear an 'I am Jewish' shirt and head for a Hezbollah meeting in Beirut.

Posted: **Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:21 pm**

KaiineTN wrote:I agree, things have shifted towards corporatism, and that is a very bad thing. Also, all too often people mistakenly think corporatism is free market capitalism. Far, far from the truth.

I believe we can remove corporate influence from government without a "single all powerful government" which would probably just be prone to corruption via corporate sponsored politicians anyways...

Hey Flink, what do you do for a living?

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:32 am**

Lyion, it is 100% on the back of the private sector, I just don't think you're capable to see it. The corruption that is now our government began in the private sector, I'd go so far to say it even perverted the founding fathers themselves (since many held high level positions or owned companies, but no, they were too smart to see a conflict of interest)

More than any other single source, the private sector is the only entity that is winning here, yet blinded buffoons still can't see that.

Lyion, what price has the private sector had to bear in any of this economic downturn? Then compare that to the price every other sector has paid, GOV / public, middle class, poor, etc.

Why am I or the unions being held accountable? We or they(unions) had no back door deals, everything we got we got over the table, not under, legislation was passed for all these benefits, yet now the GOV wants it back for what? for why? to pay the fucking private sector, they can fuck right off and should pay a heavy price themselves.

Who exactly keeps the private sector in check when half our elected officials are "owned" by a private sector company?

This isn't a Rep / Dem issue, it is a GOV issue. I still hold more contempt for Rep because of what I already said.

This IS the rep agenda:

They want to control what you earn: They are proving that even more now than ever before. They tax hike the middle/poor and GIVE money to the private sector
They want to control your reproduction: Pro life even in rape and incest. Target services that help middle/poor class "mothers" (Planned Parenthood and several other social services)
They want to control your religion: They continually demonize non-Christian religions (the new flavor is Islam, what for a Hindu to commit a crime)
They want to control your sexual preference: They demonize all preference that isn't man+women.

I'm not making the shit up, you don't have to agree, I'm not selling anything to anyone, the facts are there for you so you know.

No comments for the Reps here about why democracy is dead here? Why is that, do you believe it's not dead? Why is it that 80%, more than any other issue known to man in recent history, 80% want a tax hike on 250k earners yet, the GOV (REPS) will not even discuss it? Could it be that the far majority of 250k earners are private sector people?

Lets wait and see how 2012 goes when, hmmm, the private sector pours mountains of cash into the machine, and the now busted broken public/private union sector won't be able to muster but a fraction of the same. Lets see how bad the bashing gets, the spin.

Why is it that statics can 100% prove our demise, we are losing in our country, we are headed to the basement of industrialized nations on this planet. All the GOV does is cater to the private sector, fuck over all the rest, take their money and run away.

Lyion, I'm not picking on you but truth be told, you're an intelligent guy that happens to be on the other side of the fence who can articulate a logical response (that I don't always do :p). So that is why I directed my questions to you. I do think you're blidned, but so is every other right leaning person I talk to who won't let "reason" into their minds (and no, that wasn't meant as a dig on you :p). Yeah I'm a socialist, so you can call me crazy there, I'm ok with that.

Who on this board would accept a 10% tax hike to make things right? (crickets) LOL
Who thinks private sector employee pay should be capped? (crickets) LOL

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:45 pm**

Clakar, are you Charlie Sheen?

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:47 pm**

I'd be down for a 10% tax hike to make things right! So long as it came with a 15% raise in pay!

And in 2012, I don't care about the rest of my political views. I'm voting for whoever says they're going to stick a big black dick in the ass of big oil and get my gallons back under 2 bucks.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:07 pm**

Reynaldo wrote:I'd be down for a 10% tax hike to make things right! So long as it came with a 15% raise in pay!

And in 2012, I don't care about the rest of my political views. I'm voting for whoever says they're going to stick a big black dick in the ass of big oil and get my gallons back under 2 bucks.

Good luck on that one.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:55 pm**

The government makes more money from gasoline tax than oil companies make in profit--and they want to raise the tax. So yeah, like Tossica said, good luck on that.

They want to control what you earn: They are proving that even more now than ever before. They tax hike the middle/poor and GIVE money to the private sector

Give money to the private sector? If you're referring to tax breaks/cuts, then your wording suggests that you believe the government owns our incomes and allows us to keep x percent of it. Is the money you earn yours, or the government's? Do you have a right to it? Or does the government simply graciously allow you to keep part of it? I'm all for across the board tax cuts, but only if they're matched with spending cuts. Many conservatives feel the same.

If you're against giving money to the private sector, which I am, strongly, you should oppose things like financial aid, housing programs, etc., the various industry subsidies. THAT is giving money. Taxing less is not "giving" anything. It is "taking" less.

They want to control your reproduction: Pro life even in rape and incest. Target services that help middle/poor class "mothers" (Planned Parenthood and several other social services)

This is why I consider myself a libertarian leaning Republican. But then, even most of those tend to be pro-life... Personally, I don't really care. Libertarianism tells me to not care wtf you do so long as it doesn't harm other people. I guess I don't really think of a baby having a life of its own until it is capable of living apart from the Mother. Up for debate, but not a debate I care to have. It is ultimately an issue that should be left to the states, and I am far more concerned with federal-level policies. Get rid of politicians in Washington that want to supersede state law and dictate how thing should be for everyone.

They want to control your religion: They continually demonize non-Christian religions (the new flavor is Islam, what for a Hindu to commit a crime)

Neo-con nonsense. Neo-conservatism has been dying since Bush left office. True, while most people who would consider themselves social conservatives in America (certainly not I) are Christians, I believe the core of the Republican party is shifting from social conservatism to fiscal conservatism--a very welcome move. Social conservativism will not win the majority.

They want to control your sexual preference: They demonize all preference that isn't man+women.

If I had my way, I'd kick all such social conservatives out. You have the right to live your life any way you please so long as you aren't infringing on someone else's ability to do so. That is as hard for some Republicans to understand as it is for some Democrats to understand that such liberty exists in economic matters as well.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:25 pm**

Flink, you live in a fantasy world. You don't get to reap the benefits of a society without paying your fair share to maintain the infrastructure that goes along with it.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:40 pm**

KaiineTN wrote:The government makes more money from gasoline tax than oil companies make in profit--and they want to raise the tax. So yeah, like Tossica said, good luck on that.

They want to control what you earn: They are proving that even more now than ever before. They tax hike the middle/poor and GIVE money to the private sector

Give money to the private sector? If you're referring to tax breaks/cuts, then your wording suggests that you believe the government owns our incomes and allows us to keep x percent of it. Is the money you earn yours, or the government's? Do you have a right to it? Or does the government simply graciously allow you to keep part of it? I'm all for across the board tax cuts, but only if they're matched with spending cuts. Many conservatives feel the same.

If you're against giving money to the private sector, which I am, strongly, you should oppose things like financial aid, housing programs, etc., the various industry subsidies. THAT is giving money. Taxing less is not "giving" anything. It is "taking" less.

They want to control your reproduction: Pro life even in rape and incest. Target services that help middle/poor class "mothers" (Planned Parenthood and several other social services)

This is why I consider myself a libertarian leaning Republican. But then, even most of those tend to be pro-life... Personally, I don't really care. Libertarianism tells me to not care wtf you do so long as it doesn't harm other people. I guess I don't really think of a baby having a life of its own until it is capable of living apart from the Mother. Up for debate, but not a debate I care to have. It is ultimately an issue that should be left to the states, and I am far more concerned with federal-level policies. Get rid of politicians in Washington that want to supersede state law and dictate how thing should be for everyone.

They want to control your religion: They continually demonize non-Christian religions (the new flavor is Islam, what for a Hindu to commit a crime)

Neo-con nonsense. Neo-conservatism has been dying since Bush left office. True, while most people who would consider themselves social conservatives in America (certainly not I) are Christians, I believe the core of the Republican party is shifting from social conservatism to fiscal conservatism--a very welcome move. Social conservativism will not win the majority.

They want to control your sexual preference: They demonize all preference that isn't man+women.

If I had my way, I'd kick all such social conservatives out. You have the right to live your life any way you please so long as you aren't infringing on someone else's ability to do so. That is as hard for some Republicans to understand as it is for some Democrats to understand that such liberty exists in economic matters as well.

DID NOT FUCKING READ ANY OF THIS SHIT HAHAHAHAHA

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:56 pm**

I don't know why, but I laughed very loudly at that just now. I'm simple :badrazz:

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:11 am**

Harrison wrote:I don't know why, but I laughed very loudly at that just now. I'm simple

It's cuz it was bolded I think.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:33 am**

I have some free time so I thought I'd respond to this. First, I'm not anti Union, and feel they are mostly a force for good, outside of some kickback corruption in the public employee variant.

ClakarEQ wrote:Lyion, it is 100% on the back of the private sector, I just don't think you're capable to see it. The corruption that is now our government began in the private sector, I'd go so far to say it even perverted the founding fathers themselves (since many held high level positions or owned companies, but no, they were too smart to see a conflict of interest)

More than any other single source, the private sector is the only entity that is winning here, yet blinded buffoons still can't see that.

The private sector is a pretty broad spectrum. Do you mean corporate America? Corporate America has been shellacked mostly the last few years in terms of success. Yes, CEOs still make hefty salaries and they still do backroom deals with government, but they do not hold any legislative or regulative power, so I'm not sure what your point here is. This is the same as it ever was. Politicians are by and large wealthy, and public employee unions have done far better than the private variants, so I disagree if I understand your basic premise.

Lyion, what price has the private sector had to bear in any of this economic downturn? Then compare that to the price every other sector has paid, GOV / public, middle class, poor, etc.

Private sector employees have seen their 401k programs take hefty hits. They have seen massive job losses. Many have had to retrain or go different job routes. This is different from government sector jobs which to me seem far more secure and many with guaranteed pensions which are far more lucrative.

Why am I or the unions being held accountable? We or they(unions) had no back door deals, everything we got we got over the table, not under, legislation was passed for all these benefits, yet now the GOV wants it back for what? for why? to pay the fucking private sector, they can fuck right off and should pay a heavy price themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean here, as you don't indicate something specifically. Many states have huge cost overruns related to public employee union costs, and are trying to balance their books. The unions threw their lots in with the DNC which in a lot of states have promised more and more lucrative benefits which are expensive and for many not viable. When the other party whom the unions opposed got in power, did you expect them to protect the other side and their massive costs? If you really want fairness, allow all union employees the ability to opt out of any of their dues going to political entities. Most can't as of now.

Anyways, this sounds like a state issue. Your state is not my state. Our last Dem governor here in Ohio was tougher on Unions than any GOP governor in my many years in California.

Who exactly keeps the private sector in check when half our elected officials are "owned" by a private sector company?

We have dozens of 24x7 news programs. We have watchdog groups. We have elections. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but I'll throw back on you, who keeps elected officials in check who are given tens of millions by union groups to give them preferential treatment on the backs of the taxpayers, not their own money? Same deal.

This isn't a Rep / Dem issue, it is a GOV issue. I still hold more contempt for Rep because of what I already said.

This IS the rep agenda:

They want to control what you earn: They are proving that even more now than ever before. They tax hike the middle/poor and GIVE money to the private sector
They want to control your reproduction: Pro life even in rape and incest. Target services that help middle/poor class "mothers" (Planned Parenthood and several other social services)
They want to control your religion: They continually demonize non-Christian religions (the new flavor is Islam, what for a Hindu to commit a crime)
They want to control your sexual preference: They demonize all preference that isn't man+women.

I'm not making the shit up, you don't have to agree, I'm not selling anything to anyone, the facts are there for you so you know.

First, you say it's not a partisan issue. Then you launch into a partisan generalization?

Hyperbole.

This paragraph is almost as bad as saying Dems want to tax and spend and bankrupt America or want to kill babies. I read a pretty good article last week stating educated conservatives mostly consider liberals dumb. Liberals, on the other side consider conservatives evil. The more I thought about it, the more accurate I consider it, since even the smartest seem to speak in wide black and white theatrical brush strokes.

Most people are pragmatic and don't operate on the fringe.

No comments for the Reps here about why democracy is dead here? Why is that, do you believe it's not dead? Why is it that 80%, more than any other issue known to man in recent history, 80% want a tax hike on 250k earners yet, the GOV (REPS) will not even discuss it? Could it be that the far majority of 250k earners are private sector people?

Lets wait and see how 2012 goes when, hmmm, the private sector pours mountains of cash into the machine, and the now busted broken public/private union sector won't be able to muster but a fraction of the same. Lets see how bad the bashing gets, the spin.

So, the crux of your complaint is the private sector which essentially pays the taxes which enable the country to run will have more of a voice than the unions which leverage funds and funnel tens of millions to Dems to promote legislation for their own benefit?

Most of the union changes that have been rolled out are for PUBLIC EMPLOYEE programs that are paid for by TAXPAYERS. The problem here is collective bargaining has done to many states what the unions did to GM. Unlike GM, there is no easy bankruptcy and PBGC for these states and no Federal bailout. They just ask for more taxes, nickle and diming people with the brunt of the cost being absorbed by the middle class. The ultra wealthy contingent don't and won't pay taxes because they have the lawyers, accountants, and all politicians on their side. Over 70% of donations from Wall Street go to the DNC, so you can't really say it's just the GOP funneling those big private dollars.

Why is it that statics can 100% prove our demise, we are losing in our country, we are headed to the basement of industrialized nations on this planet. All the GOV does is cater to the private sector, fuck over all the rest, take their money and run away.

We have the number 1 GDP of the world. We have the highest quality of living of any time in the history of our country. We have the most advanced health care technology in the world. Life expectancy is skyrocketing.

We are in a recession based on the economy. It happens. Those of us whom are older can remember the late 70s and the astronomical inflation and long lines for expensive gas. Back then we were told our best days were over. They weren't.

In 1990 the oil shock and economy were hurting and we heard the same thing. Same deal after the dot com bubble burst.

If you are railing against government corruption and corporations being evil and soulless, well those are sad side effects of a free market republic. We do the best we can, but our country is by no means dying and I think the next technology is around the corner which will kick start the economy and move us to the other side of the pendulum to boom which is what happens in free market economies and their cyclical nature.

Things are actual a bit better in relation to spending as there are more people watching and more free dissemination of information.

Who on this board would accept a 10% tax hike to make things right? (crickets) LOL
Who thinks private sector employee pay should be capped? (crickets) LOL

First you complain about the GOP wanting to control people, now you want more taxes and government telling business what and how to do it. Any tax increase will hit the middle class which already pay through the nose with so many taxes it's silly.

The trick to fixing the tax system is to ensure everyone is paying their fair share. The way to get there is to switch to a flat tax or other variant where everyone above X income pays their amount. I don't think this'll happen, but then again I never thought public employee union members would ever move to 401ks or paying for their own share of health insurance similar to what us 'private' people have been doing our whole careers.

You want to fix the country and spending? It's easy. First, Ensure multi millionaire seniors are paying their share of health care. Enact federal tort reform. Enact Social Security reform and stop taking money from it for other programs. Cut defense spending by 30%. Cut entitlement spendings at the federal level by 35%.

This doesn't address any state issue, but would be a good start to long term smart fiscal solvency.

I will say I think everything will be ok. If you want real disaster and gloom, just turn on the TV and watch Japan or Libya.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:37 am**

I almost completely agree with Lyion except in some cases. You say the public unions are corrupt because they spend millions on politicians to lobby for better legislation. Why is this even possible? Just close the loophole. How are they spending public funds on this anyway? I don't know how all the ins and outs of your government work, but this seems really ludicrous. Maybe they don't treat the union like a public institution since the revenue is generated off the salary of public servants and not directly from the government so they don't feel they need to operate as such, but it's ridiculous that the government could basically transfer public funds over to a politician.

Close the loophole, problem solved. Why bother enacting legislation to handcuff public unions simply because the majority of Americans are afraid of the government? Furthermore, why are the teabaggers supporting this when their main mandate is to stop interference in the market? This is just more legislation which interferes with fair competition?

namelesstavern.net

union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting

Re: union-busting