President-Elect Launches Propaganda Site That Makes Digg Look Reasonable
-
La plateforme mondiale pour le changement
Change.org est la plus grande plateforme mondiale de pétitions, utilisant la technologie pour donner à plus de 200 millions d'utilisateurs le pouvoir de créer le changement qu'ils souhaitent voir.
Just a glance of the front page is enough to make any sensible person ill. This has to be the most Godawful load of bullshit I have ever seen a politician commit to, and that is saying a lot. Well, at least the utter destruction of America will be hilariously retarded, if this site is any indication.
-
Perhaps you should be looking instead at http://www.change.gov/? change.org clearly loves Obama, but is not obviously associated or controlled by him, as far as I can tell with a quick glance. At least, not in the obvious way that change.gov is.
-
@AssimilatedByBorg said:
Perhaps you should be looking instead at http://www.change.gov/? change.org clearly loves Obama, but is not obviously associated or controlled by him, as far as I can tell with a quick glance. At least, not in the obvious way that change.gov is.
Wow, WTF? I noticed it was change.org, but I followed the link from Slashdot (which said change.gov, but I assumed it was just a redirect). Well, change.gov looks stupid too, but more of a slick, deceptive politician site rather than some nutty hippies who have nothing better to do than write articles about coffee beans. Jesus Christ.
-
actually change.gov is by far the scarier:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
-
@tster said:
How long does college take? 4 years? That'll add up to 400 hours total.100 hours of community service in college every year.
I was stuck with 480 hours of "Community Social Service" as a requisite for graduation from college; and these have to be covered in two years. That's 240 hours/year; basically you've got to do it with nonprofit organizations like the Red Cross, Special Olympics or some other educational institutions.
At least the "Classroom Corps" sounds more intelligent than "No Child Left Behind"; which has been used as an excuse to pass lazy students.
-
@tster said:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
AKA, the campaign to change the 13th Amendment:@US Consitution said:
<ip>Section 1.</ip> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or to meet the nation's challenges, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
<ip>Section 2.</ip> Congress or the change that we've been waiting for shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
-
@tster said:
100 hours of community service in college every year.
I'm not even sure that's entirely legal. A degree is backed by the school that gave it, not the government. It's not like a driving license.To say "you cannot give out this degree without this extra bit of bullshit" is wrong, especially if the school isn't publicly funded. The government (AFAIK) has regulations that must be followed with regards to EDUCATION, and community service has nothing to do with education.
Also, that's like asking someone to take another 2 or 3 classes (3 credit hours for 15 weeks in a semester schedule = 45 or 3 credit hours for 10 weeks in a quarter schedule = 45) to get the same thing that the graduates the year before you got without having to do it.
Of course, if he made it legal ... God help us all.
@tster said:
50 hours in middle school and high school and 100 hours in college
WTF? Do they magically think that college students have MORE time on their hands to do community service than high schoolers?
-
@belgariontheking said:
To say "you cannot give out this degree without this extra bit of bullshit" is wrong, especially if the school isn't publicly funded. The government (AFAIK) has regulations that must be followed with regards to EDUCATION, and community service has nothing to do with education.
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. Ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery and education is mandatory service in Zero's Youth Brigades.
Our government has been massively expanding its power for decades now. They will enforce this the same way they do with anything: by leveraging their existing powers to beat everyone into submission. Most public schools and universities require Federal funding, so it's pretty easy to force them to implement these changes. What's more, the government can require universities to only accept students that did community service if they want to keep receiving funding. That takes care of a lot of private schools because the administrators won't want their graduates to be rejected from Federally-funded universities with this requirement. Finally, the government can require that any government employee or employee of a private business that does business with the government must meet certain requirements, such as all new high school or college graduates meeting the service requirements of Zero's Revolutionary Guard. This will result in private universities requiring the forced government servitude because the Feds are so deeply involved in the economy that only a handful of employers will be able to hire non-conforming employees. Of course, this number will shrink even more as the government extends its tentacles deeper and deeper into every aspect of the economy.
Patient: Liberty
Time of Death: Nov 4th, 2008
@belgariontheking said:
WTF? Do they magically think that college students have MORE time on their hands to do community service than high schoolers?
Don't ask me, I didn't vote for the asshole. Maybe you should find some of the people who did and ask them why they supported mandatory community service.
-
@belgariontheking said:
To say "you cannot give out this degree without this extra bit of bullshit" is wrong, especially if the school isn't publicly funded.
Sure, but they're all publicly funded to some degree. Consider that the feds didn't have to pass a law to say that the national speed limit was 55. They just made highway spending dependent upon states doing so. They could similarly only give out student loans to pay for attendance at schools with "acceptable" community service requirements.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Patient: Liberty
Morbs, did you go off your meds? Or are you really this much of an idiot?Time of Death: Nov 4th, 2008
-
@belgariontheking said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Patient: Liberty
Morbs, did you go off your meds? Or are you really this much of an idiot?Time of Death: Nov 4th, 2008
Do you really have to ask?
I agree with what's-his-name: "most" universities receive government grants for education and research. To mandate that in order to receive government money they must have their students, GOD FORBID, give something back to their comunity in order to receive this money isn't all "That" bad. I agree, government is getting too intrusive in a way, but this topic should be the least of your worries.
-
@belgariontheking said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Patient: Liberty
Morbs, did you go off your meds? Or are you really this much of an idiot?Time of Death: Nov 4th, 2008
You have the gall to call me an idiot when you supported this candidate without knowing the first fucking thing about his platform? Just admit you voted for him because you are ignorant and easily swayed by empty rhetoric. After repeated discussions with you, it's clear you don't understand the first thing about this election and unlike mps you aren't just trolling to be annoying.
-
@amischiefr said:
To mandate that in order to receive government money they must have their students, GOD FORBID, give something back to their comunity in order to receive this money isn't all "That" bad. I agree, government is getting too intrusive in a way, but this topic should be the least of your worries.
They could give more back to the community by getting jobs, but then they would be pissed off about the tax money being taken by Zero. Instead, the government will just tax everyone else and use that money to fund a corps of young "change agents" loyal to The Party. It may not happen under Zero, but this is definitely another big step towards a Communist state.
-
@amischiefr said:
@belgariontheking said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Patient: Liberty
Morbs, did you go off your meds? Or are you really this much of an idiot?Time of Death: Nov 4th, 2008
Do you really have to ask?
I agree with what's-his-name: "most" universities receive government grants for education and research. To mandate that in order to receive government money they must have their students, GOD FORBID, give something back to their comunity in order to receive this money isn't all "That" bad. I agree, government is getting too intrusive in a way, but this topic should be the least of your worries.
You do realize that the kind of "community service" that Hussein will be pushing will be working for ACORN to help steal elections by having everybody in the cemetary vote for the Democrats, right?
-
@tster said:
TDWTF Forums: Because thoughtful, intelligent discourse on politics is hard.You do realize that the kind of "community service" that Hussein will be pushing will be working for ACORN to help steal elections by having everybody in the cemetary vote for the Democrats, right?
-
@tster said:
You do realize that the kind of "community service" that Hussein will be pushing will be working for ACORN to help steal elections by having everybody in the cemetary vote for the Democrats, right?
Wow, this is by far one of the stupidest comments that I have ever read, and I've visited /. before. Oh yes, and JFK was killed by Russian KGB in order to prevent the negros from voting and Joe Peshi was actually a Cuban illegal at the time and provided the ammunition used while Peter Rabbit waited on the grassy knoll with his AR-15 lined up for the 2nd shot with snikers in his back pocket and Bill Clinton, only 15 at the time, donated the scope used for the rifle, secretly knowing that if JFK was assinated that he would gain favor... Ok I fucking lost it, but my rant was more plausable than yours...
-
@amischiefr said:
You're right, of course. They're mostly registering NFL starting lineups and mall kiosk workers.@tster said:
You do realize that the kind of "community service" that Hussein will be pushing will be working for ACORN to help steal elections by having everybody in the cemetary vote for the Democrats, right?
Wow, this is by far one of the stupidest comments that I have ever read, and I've visited /. before. Oh yes, [rant omitted]... Ok I fucking lost it, but my rant was more plausable than yours...
-
@bstorer said:
@tster said:
TDWTF Forums: Because thoughtful, intelligent discourse on politics is hard.You do realize that the kind of "community service" that Hussein will be pushing will be working for ACORN to help steal elections by having everybody in the cemetary vote for the Democrats, right?
I'm sorry, do you think that BO will not give money and resources to ACORN and push for these community service hours to go to groups like ACORN? Or is it that you think ACORN is actually a community service organization and not a government assisted, political machine intended to elect Democrats?
-
@tster said:
I'm sorry, do you think that BO will not give money and resources to ACORN and push for these community service hours to go to groups like ACORN? Or is it that you think ACORN is actually a community service organization and not a government assisted, political machine intended to elect Democrats?
I think ACORN is a mountain made of a molehill. Further, I think this: @tster said:that Hussein will be pushing will be working for ACORN to help steal elections by having everybody in the cemetary vote for the Democrats, right?
is nothing but hackneyed palaver.
-
@bstorer said:
@tster said:
pesto: making you look up words since 2008!I'm sorry, do you think that BO will not give money and resources to ACORN and push for these community service hours to go to groups like ACORN? Or is it that you think ACORN is actually a community service organization and not a government assisted, political machine intended to elect Democrats?
I think ACORN is a mountain made of a molehill. Further, I think this: @tster said:that Hussein will be pushing will be working for ACORN to help steal elections by having everybody in the cemetary vote for the Democrats, right?
is nothing but hackneyed palaver.
-
@belgariontheking said:
pesto: making you look up words since 2008!
Big words make me seem smart. Tell you what, from now on, when I use a word with more than one syllable, I'll give you a link to the definition, okay?
-
@bstorer said:
@tster said:
I'm sorry, do you think that BO will not give money and resources to ACORN and push for these community service hours to go to groups like ACORN? Or is it that you think ACORN is actually a community service organization and not a government assisted, political machine intended to elect Democrats?
I think ACORN is a mountain made of a molehill.It may be, but it's no secret that in certain areas the Democratic "Machine" rigs elections. The Republicans probably do the same, but being a former resident of the great state of Illinois, I can attest to the pointlessness of having elections there. The winner will be whomever the IL Democratic Party selects*, unless they don't care enough to actually rig election. Remember, these are the folks who brought us "vote eary, vote often" and rigged the 1960 election in Kennedy's favor. Obviously the Democrats are nowhere near as powerful outside of Chicago. If you've never experienced Chicago politics first hand you might think I am exaggerating, but it really is that shameless. Ballot boxes inexplicably go missing, people who are dead or never existed vote by the tens of thousands, precincts end up with laughably skewed vote totals, and so on. Of course, nothing happens because the Democrats have absolute authority there and if the people who rig the election also control the city and state police, the state prosecutors, the state government and so-on...
@bstorer said:
Further, I think this: @tster said:
that Hussein will be pushing will be working for ACORN to help steal elections by having everybody in the cemetary vote for the Democrats, right?
is nothing but hackneyed palaver.Perhaps, but remember that Zero is a Chicago politician so he's been right in the thick of this kind of shameless cheating since day one. I'm not going to say for sure that he ever participated in a rigged election, but I know how things blow in the Windy City, so I wouldn't rule it out. tster might be overstating his case, but I wouldn't be shocked if this community service bullshit creates some highly-indoctrinated young adults who owe their school funding to Zero's state.
* I have it on good authority that Democratic candidates in Illinois are chosen by Daley interpreting the stomach contents of sacrificial goats.
-
I think acorns are generally not-good-to-eat fruit from trees of the oak variety. Unless you're a squirrel or something.
I prefer walnuts and pecans among others, personally.
That said, I think anything a government proclaims which is "mandatory" for citizens is suspect, no matter what that thing is. Of course, I also happen to believe that freedom and responsibility are proportional terms; any time you give up responsibility you must also by necessity give up freedom. So the way I see it, any vote for a reduction in responsibility is by necessity a vote for reduction in freedom. This is what happened with the TSA and Dept. of Homeland Security, and this is what is happening with the financial sector and soon to happen with the auto industry, and is what it looks like will happen with education and health care. Consider children: they don't have much responsibility, but they don't have much freedom either.
You can argue all you want about the results of these things, but what you would be hard-pressed to argue is that the majority of people in the US appear to want no responsibility, so the erosion of freedoms is the inevitable result.
Some "mandatory" things I would say are necessary - things like having a jury trial for criminal cases I would say is a good thing to be mandatory. That's about all I can think of off the top of my head though. But I would say that all things mandatory should be considered long and hard before consideration.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
That said, I think anything a government proclaims which is "mandatory" for citizens is suspect, no matter what that thing is. Of course, I also happen to believe that freedom and responsibility are proportional terms; any time you give up responsibility you must also by necessity give up freedom. So the way I see it, any vote for a reduction in responsibility is by necessity a vote for reduction in freedom. This is what happened with the TSA and Dept. of Homeland Security, and this is what is happening with the financial sector and soon to happen with the auto industry, and is what it looks like will happen with education and health care. Consider children: they don't have much responsibility, but they don't have much freedom either.
You can argue all you want about the results of these things, but what you would be hard-pressed to argue is that the majority of people in the US appear to want no responsibility, so the erosion of freedoms is the inevitable result.
Some "mandatory" things I would say are necessary - things like having a jury trial for criminal cases I would say is a good thing to be mandatory. That's about all I can think of off the top of my head though. But I would say that all things mandatory should be considered long and hard before consideration.
What the hell are you babbling about? Freedom is responsibility. Or more precisely, responsibility is foundation of freedom. It's because of the erosion of personal responsbility (education standards, welfare, drug rehab, socialized healthcare, bailouts) that destroy liberty. Anyway, that's irrelevent to a lot of that. Societies function better with lots of freedom and only a few restrictions and so do the economies that support them. It's the destruction of economic freedom that has brought about the massive economic problems we face today. Sadly, the response from a Zero administration will almost certainly make things worse but it will probably make people momentarily happy, especially the poor people who will receive the spoils.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What the hell are you babbling about? Freedom is responsibility.....
Uhh...that's exactly what I said.
Except for the bit about acorns.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
@morbiuswilters said:
What the hell are you babbling about? Freedom is responsibility.....
Uhh...that's exactly what I said.
Except for the bit about acorns.
Oh, nevermind. I thought you were saying responsibility and freedom were inversely proportional, so that if you wanted people to be more responsible you had to reign in their freedom.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What the hell are you babbling about? Freedom is responsibility. Or more precisely, responsibility is foundation of freedom. It's because of the erosion of personal responsbility (education standards, welfare, drug rehab, socialized healthcare, bailouts) that destroy liberty.
Oooooh, so you want to get rid of that tiny remaining bit of socialized healthcare you still have left, too? Well, yeah, I guess if all people who can't afford the hospital stay after their car accident just die instead, that IS a way to improve society. Darwin would be proud.
@morbiuswilters said:
Societies function better with lots of freedom and only a few restrictions and so do the economies that support them. It's the destruction of economic freedom that has brought about the massive economic problems we face today.
Yeah, that secret Democrat shadow government that was in charge for the last eight years really messed everything up by taking away economic freedom everywhere it could. It's a real shame you didn't have some adult Republican guys for a change that knew how to do stuff and would give the wise leaders of our financial institutions all the freedom they deserve...
@morbiuswilters said:
Sadly, the response from a Zero administration will almost certainly make things worse but it will probably make people momentarily happy, especially the poor people who will receive the spoils.
And how are you supposed to exercise your freedom if you don't have any money? Yeah, god forbid that someone would actually try to make poor people happy... What has this country come to indeed...
-
@PSWorx said:
Oooooh, so you want to get rid of that tiny remaining bit of socialized healthcare you still have left, too? Well, yeah, I guess if all people who can't afford the hospital stay after their car accident just die instead, that IS a way to improve society. Darwin would be proud.
Opposing socialized healthcare does not mean letting people die if they can't pay. Nice straw man, though. The state of Massachusetts has an interesting approach: all citizens are required to purchase private health insurance. I think this sounds pretty reasonable. Time will tell if it works as intended.
@PSWorx said:
Yeah, that secret Democrat shadow government that was in charge for the last eight years really messed everything up by taking away economic freedom everywhere it could. It's a real shame you didn't have some adult Republican guys for a change that knew how to do stuff and would give the wise leaders of our financial institutions all the freedom they deserve...
The Bush administration was one of the most economically liberal in recent decades. And no, this recession has nothing to do with deregulation or market freedom. It has to do with reckless Federal Reserve policy and requirements by the Federal government that required banks to make risky loans. Nobody in their right mind would loan money to most of the people who are now defaulting, but when it is required by law and the capital for the loan is fake Fed-issued credit, things will go wrong. People who understand free markets were predicting this collapse for many years and only short-sighted fools ignored them. The bailout does nothing but defer (and worsen) the inevitable market corrections.
@PSWorx said:
And how are you supposed to exercise your freedom if you don't have any money? Yeah, god forbid that someone would actually try to make poor people happy... What has this country come to indeed...
Freedom will inherently lead to wealth generation. The fact that you do not understand fundamental economic principles is no concern of mine. I would recommend you read up on how capitalism functions before you act as if you have a clue. At the very least, it would make your arguments more amusing instead of just sad. Additionally, the government can only make one group happy by hurting another group. When you tax the rich to hand money to the poor, you discourage wealth-generation, you encourage the behaviors of the poor which do not generate wealth and you ultimately guarantee that the total amount of wealth will shrink. Wealth redistribution only succeeds in making everyone as poor as the poorest members of society. Capitalism is the only system capable of generating wealth. When the government steals from one group to pay another, not only are they acting without morals, they are also guaranteeing less wealth in the future for the nation as a whole.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
When the government steals from one group to pay another, not only are they acting without morals, they are also guaranteeing less wealth in the future for the nation as a whole.
I bet you're not even a licensed programmer. Why should anyone listen to you?
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
When the government steals from one group to pay another, not only are they acting without morals, they are also guaranteeing less wealth in the future for the nation as a whole.
I bet you're not even a licensed programmer. Why should anyone listen to you?Comrade, I am a Senior Revolutionary in The Party. If you can't trust me, who can you trust? No one. Seriously. If you trust anyone else, we will have you "re-educated".
-
@PSWorx said:
@morbiuswilters said:
What the hell are you babbling about? Freedom is responsibility. Or more precisely, responsibility is foundation of freedom. It's because of the erosion of personal responsbility (education standards, welfare, drug rehab, socialized healthcare, bailouts) that destroy liberty.
Oooooh, so you want to get rid of that tiny remaining bit of socialized healthcare you still have left, too? Well, yeah, I guess if all people who can't afford the hospital stay after their car accident just die instead, that IS a way to improve society. Darwin would be proud.
What the hell are you babbling about? Our healthcare system is just as socialized as it has been for a while, and it's unlikely to become any less so anytime soon. As to your actual point, if someone is in a car accident then their car insurence will cover hospitalization, so I don't really see how this is a problem. Furthermore, it's not the unninsured car accident accident victims that are making health care expensive.
@PSWorx said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Societies function better with lots of freedom and only a few restrictions and so do the economies that support them. It's the destruction of economic freedom that has brought about the massive economic problems we face today.
Yeah, that secret Democrat shadow government that was in charge for the last eight years really messed everything up by taking away economic freedom everywhere it could. It's a real shame you didn't have some adult Republican guys for a change that knew how to do stuff and would give the wise leaders of our financial institutions all the freedom they deserve...
Morbius was referring to actual policies put in place by politicians in the last 10 years, both Republican and Democrat. You seem to be under the delusion that Morbius is some kind of Republican partisan, which couldn't be more wrong. Ironically in your inane, barely understandable, ramblings you made a good point. It really is a shame there wasn't a strong conservative to stand up to the federalists in congress that caused this disaster by attempting to control the housing market with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mac.
@PSWorx said:
And how are you supposed to exercise your freedom if you don't have any money?
You don't need money to be free or to "exercise" that freedom. Although, I must ask you the more important question: How do you exercise your money if you don't have any freedom?
@PSWorx said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Sadly, the response from a Zero administration will almost certainly make things worse but it will probably make people momentarily happy, especially the poor people who will receive the spoils.
Yeah, god forbid that someone would actually try to make poor people happy... What has this country come to indeed...
How many times do we have to repeat this before liberals understand it: Give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for his life. Then again, the true harm of the former is not contained in that phrase. I would modify it to:
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day and make him dependent on you. Teach a man to fish and make him self-sufficient forever.
Don't you realize that giving poor people something that makes them temporarily happy will end up causing them to become that much more dependent on the government, which in turns will make everyone worst off down the line?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Capitalism is the only system capable of generating wealth.
Just because it is the best doesn't mean that it is the only system capable of it. Stalin's 5 year plans generated a great amount of wealth very quickly. It just so happened that it was not sustainable and it had a catastophic human cost.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
When the government steals from one group to pay another, not only are they acting without morals, they are also guaranteeing less wealth in the future for the nation as a whole.
So, taking 300 billion dollars of EVERYBODY's tax money and giving it/redistributing it to the oil companies and big business isn't the same exact thing, just handing it out to the rich instead of the poor? Last time I checked Exon made some pretty good profits recently and is not in need of huge tax breaks, but hey: what do I know. If a company ships its work overseas they generally save A LOT of money on labor and overhead. So, giving companies that ship their jobs overseas, saving themselves not the American people tons of money, tax breaks for doing so isn't the same thing? Did you see the price of Dell, or any other company that outsourced / shipped jobs overseas, drop at all?
How about we stop argueing about which of these two stupid ass groups is right and start discussing what would be a "fair tax policy" instead because neither side, donkey or elephant, has a clue about what is fair for everybody.
-
@amischiefr said:
@morbiuswilters said:
When the government steals from one group to pay another, not only are they acting without morals, they are also guaranteeing less wealth in the future for the nation as a whole.
So, taking 300 billion dollars of EVERYBODY's tax money and giving it/redistributing it to the oil companies and big business isn't the same exact thing, just handing it out to the rich instead of the poor? Last time I checked Exon made some pretty good profits recently and is not in need of huge tax breaks, but hey: what do I know. If a company ships its work overseas they generally save A LOT of money on labor and overhead. So, giving companies that ship their jobs overseas, saving themselves not the American people tons of money, tax breaks for doing so isn't the same thing? Did you see the price of Dell, or any other company that outsourced / shipped jobs overseas, drop at all?
How about we stop argueing about which of these two stupid ass groups is right and start discussing what would be a "fair tax policy" instead because neither side, donkey or elephant, has a clue about what is fair for everybody.
what the fuck are you talking about? Cutting taxes on companies is in no way taking money from other people. I don't think you understand this concept. You see when a person or a company makes money, that money belongs to them. Then the government comes and steals it. If the government decides to come and steal less money, then how is that possibly considered "redistribution?" If your talking about the worthless multi-hundred billion dollar bailouts that the government is giving to every company it can find, then I agree with you. Bailing out companies that make products no one wants and pays union workers $25/hour to perform low-skill labor is not my cup of tea.
Then you start talking about tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Are you talking about the fact that when a company hires foreign workers they won't pay as much in payroll taxes? If so then you do know it's the liberals that push for more payroll taxes (which go to unemployment, medicare and social security). You also seem to think that shipping jobs overseas is a bad thing. It increases profits (which goes almost entirely to investors (aka. anyone who owns mutual funds (aka retired people and anyone that bothers to save))), it lowers the cost of products (you mentioned dell; I can purchase a computer on dell.com for $279 right now, way cheaper than when they started outsourcing). Outsourcing has been shown to cause short term unemployment here, but in the long term it creates a higher standard of living for everyone as our workforce adapts to the changing marketplace and our workers become more skilled.
-
@amischiefr said:
So, taking 300 billion dollars of EVERYBODY's tax money and giving it/redistributing it to the oil companies and big business isn't the same exact thing, just handing it out to the rich instead of the poor?
I guess the difference between the government writing a check and the governmnet allowing someone to keep more of what they earned really is too subtle for people these days. Also, corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do.@amischiefr said:
Last time I checked Exon made some pretty good profits recently and is not in need of huge tax breaks, but hey: what do I know.
Not much, apparently. I guess you like higher energy prices and the drag on the economy that it brings. The mindset involved in 'excessive' profit taxes to bring down prices is as brillant as paying developers for fixing bugs.@amischiefr said:
How about we stop argueing about which of these two stupid ass groups is right and start discussing what would be a "fair tax policy" instead because neither side, donkey or elephant, has a clue about what is fair for everybody.
Once you start talking about "fairness" in the tax code, you're more interested in punishing certain people than you are in funding the government. The government should use taxes to fund the government with a minimum of interference in the economy. There are other consequences to making a majority of people with a net gain from government. It's the real unsustainability in economic development.
-
@tster said:
...long rang...
The government "stealing" money from companies? Well, you made me laugh more than the front page, congradulations! Saying that companies that produce record profits"need" a tax break is just rediculous. Instead of handing money back to Exon, and various other oil comapnies, why not simply reduce the tax on gas? Have you ever seen the actual breakdown on how much of your price on gas goes to taxes (either state, government, export... ect)? I agree that the government tax policies are rediculous. More than 50% of the cost of a pack of smokes goes to taxes, it's bullshit. However, creating a "fair tax" policy would be much better than just cutting these companies checks once in a while. By writing a better tax policy you would see instant results, by writing a check all you do is buy the CEO and executives a new summer home.
@boomzilla said:
@amischiefr said:
So, taking 300 billion dollars of EVERYBODY's tax money and giving it/redistributing it to the oil companies and big business isn't the same exact thing, just handing it out to the rich instead of the poor?
I guess the difference between the government writing a check and the governmnet allowing someone to keep more of what they earned really is too subtle for people these days. Also, corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do.@amischiefr said:
Last time I checked Exon made some pretty good profits recently and is not in need of huge tax breaks, but hey: what do I know.
Not much, apparently. I guess you like higher energy prices and the drag on the economy that it brings. The mindset involved in 'excessive' profit taxes to bring down prices is as brillant as paying developers for fixing bugs.@amischiefr said:
How about we stop argueing about which of these two stupid ass groups is right and start discussing what would be a "fair tax policy" instead because neither side, donkey or elephant, has a clue about what is fair for everybody.
Once you start talking about "fairness" in the tax code, you're more interested in punishing certain people than you are in funding the government. The government should use taxes to fund the government with a minimum of interference in the economy. There are other consequences to making a majority of people with a net gain from government. It's the real unsustainability in economic development.Well written. However, allowing them to keep the money in the first place would allow them to lower prices, and , as I have stated above, giving them the money back after the fact is NOT going to give you the intended effect: lowering prices to the consumer. I am all for taxing the goods from corporations less in order to reduce the cost to the customer. Show me some proof that handing out large amounts of money in tax releif after the fact actually lowers the cost of the goods for the future.
How would a fair tax policy punish certain people? I fail to see how having something like a flat consumer taxe and no income tax would be punishing anybody. Sure, the wealthy might pay more taxes than you or I because they purchase more, but aren't they already doing that?
-
@tster said:
$25/hour to perform low-skill labor is not my cup of tea.
I just heard on the radio that including benefits and everything the cost to the automakers for the average hoursly worker is $81/hour
-
@amischiefr said:
However, allowing them to keep the money in the first place would allow them to lower prices, and , as I have stated above, giving them the money back after the fact is NOT going to give you the intended effect: lowering prices to the consumer. I am all for taxing the goods from corporations less in order to reduce the cost to the customer. Show me some proof that handing out large amounts of money in tax releif after the fact actually lowers the cost of the goods for the future.
I think you're confusing corporate income taxes with excise taxes. It's the excise taxes that you pay at the pump. The corporate tax breaks occur in the calculations for corporate income taxes, which are based on the profits before taxes.The stuff left over after taxes either goes to investors as dividends, or is reinvested in the company. Oil companies like to reinvest in things like exploring for more oil, which increases supply (at least compared to the absence of exploration) and puts downward pressures on consumer prices. So part of their pricing strategy is to maximize the profits after taxes, so that they can either pay their investors or reinvest. By reducing taxes, you've also reduced the price at which they have to charge to make a given level of profit.
Of course, there are other secondary, etc, effects of not dragging that money through the tar pit of government, and let it work to create more wealth, instead of simply redistributing it. Also, while it's true that income taxes are calculated at the end of a period, that doesn't mean that businesses don't take the drain of taxes into account. It's certainly factored into business plans.
The "record" thing is misleading, too. Sure, it's record in terms of absolute dollar values, but it's not anything like a record as far as the actual ROI is concerned. While their sales went up due to higher prices, so did their costs.
I'm really confused what you mean by "tax relief after the fact."
@amischiefr said:
How would a fair tax policy punish certain people? I fail to see how having something like a flat consumer taxe and no income tax would be punishing anybody. Sure, the wealthy might pay more taxes than you or I because they purchase more, but aren't they already doing that?
I don't think there's such a thing as a tax policy that's fair to everyone, if only because fairness is subjective. It was also a poorly phrased sentence. I should have said that "When fairness becomes your primary concern..."If we made the income tax unconstitutional, I might agree. Until then, proponents of the so-called "Fair Tax" are living in a fantasy land. There is no way the government will voluntarily give up income taxes. Of course, the highly regressive nature of a consumption tax would probably have to be addressed (which, IIRC, the "Fair Tax" does). Personally, I favor a low flat tax with a generous exemption. But then, I'd like to eliminate payroll taxes (and the programs that go along with it), so I'm not holding my breath for any of those things.
-
@amischiefr said:
@tster said:
...long rang...
The government "stealing" money from companies? Well, you made me laugh more than the front page, congradulations! Saying that companies that produce record profits"need" a tax break is just rediculous.
Your skills at making arguments astonish me. Too bad there are no actual policy points here other than "We need to have higher taxes on companies that are successful." Great economoic plan!
@amischiefr said:
Instead of handing money back to Exon, and various other oil comapnies, why not simply reduce the tax on gas?
I'm for reducing all taxes. However, the gas taxes go to paying for roads and road maintenance so I don't think it would be a good tax to cut. Reducing the gas tax would do very little other than slightly increase the amount that people driveand shift the tax burden of paying for roads to the income makers instead of the drivers (which are basically the same group anyways) so it won't make a bit of difference. The little bit of money that it would save consumers ($111.136/person if the federal gas tax was completely eliminated) wouldn't do much of anything to actually help the economy. However, reducing taxes on companies gives them capital to buy new equipment and hire new people, both of which have an actual impact on the economy.
By the way, the company is "Exxon," not Exon. Normally I don't correct spelling, but that was twice and it is kind of funny to compare your complete ignorance of free-market economics and the name of one of the best companies in the world.
@amischiefr said:
However, creating a "fair tax" policy would be much better than just cutting these companies checks once in a while. By writing a better tax policy you would see instant results, by writing a check all you do is buy the CEO and executives a new summer home.
I agree completely. That's why I'm for cutting taxes, not doing stupid 1-time tax rebates and bailouts. companies hire based on their projected future need and ability. Cutting taxes will make companies more sure in their future and they will take the opportunity tohire more people and create more wealth.
@amischiefr said:
...giving them the money back after the fact is NOT going to give you the intended effect: lowering prices to the consumer...
The purpose of the tax code is NOT to lower consumer prices. However, if you want proof that lower taxes lower the cost of goods just consider the basics of economics. A company must make a profit to survive. Companies exist in a competitive marketplace. Prices will rise or fall until supply and demand are equal. Raising taxes makes companies less profitable. Hence companies will not be willing to offer their services at as low a price because they will be working just as hard for less money or sometimes a net loss. As companies cut production, supply decreases. Aggregate demand is unchanged by the price of goods and stays the same. However, since the supply has decreased there is now more demand than supply. Price increases until supply and demand are in balance again. Now you have reached another equilibrium at a higher price. This is all first day or Economics 101. It's impossible to show this in the real world because supply and demand are complex and a matter many more variable than tax policy so you can always say, "the price went down for a different reason." Also you have to realize that lower taxes does not automatically make lower prices. What it does is increase supply. That might lower prices, or there might be an increase in aggregate demand that causes price to remain fixed while there are now more of the good or service available.
@amischiefr said:
How would a fair tax policy punish certain people? I fail to see how having something like a flat consumer taxe and no income tax would be punishing anybody. Sure, the wealthy might pay more taxes than you or I because they purchase more, but aren't they already doing that?
I think am for a consumption tax to replace the income tax, but I have not studied it enough to be sure. What I'm against is a graduated income tax. A flat 10% tax would be fine with me.
