They call themselves Americans for Prosperity. They just sent us a box of t-shirts that mimic our I LOVE SOCIAL SECURITY shirts. A flattering imitation.
But here's the thing: our t-shirts are UNION MADE IN THE U.S.A. Supporting the American way of life.
Their shirts are MADE IN EL SALVADOR. Probably in a sweatshop.
Now which group is really americans for prosperity, and which group is really a bunch of hypocrites?
Get your I LOVE SOCIAL SECURITY shirts today!
But here's the thing: our t-shirts are UNION MADE IN THE U.S.A. Supporting the American way of life.
Their shirts are MADE IN EL SALVADOR. Probably in a sweatshop.
Now which group is really americans for prosperity, and which group is really a bunch of hypocrites?
Get your I LOVE SOCIAL SECURITY shirts today!
posted by Hans Riemer at 12:11 PM
75 Comments:
I fail to see what's so hypocritical about using foreign made shirts when your entire agenda is about something entirely different from "Made in USA/Not Made in USA". Way to make a big deal out of nothing, Hans. You just opened up a huge can of worms, too. I really hope you walk around with 100% made in USA gear on all the time, otherwise you once again have demonstrated your incredible hypocrisy.
I, for one, find this all to be hilarious. You underestimated the youth of America, Hans. You thought we would sit here and let the likes of you speak for us- and you were wrong. Now, because of all the blatant demagoguery you've committed, and because of your arcane view against Social Security reform, prostituting "young people" as your reason for doing so- those very "young people" are retaliating against you.
This is what happens when you push people too far. Quit complaining about it, get your ass into gear, and either step up to the plat to present a coherent argument about why you favor tax hikes over personal accounts, or get the hell out of the ballpark. Right now you've been owned by source after source, even most amateurs on this site. That should have shown you how weak your argument really was, but it didn't, and you kept your demagoguery up.
You asked for this. Now stop trying to create a childish war with these guys over t-shirts that are or are not made in the USA. I can't believe you're a 30-something, the way you act on this blog sometimes.
Supporting something "Union made" isn't necessarily supporting america. Your supporting a group of employees that use force against their employer to get a higher wage for a job that doesn't warrant such money. For example, my father works for an auto plant and makes over $100,000 a year treating the waste water there. His job does not warrant such high wages. But because he is part of the union, the auto maker has to pay them.
So what happens due to these higher wages? We pay more for our automobiles. The automaker has to get a profit some way right. So if their overhead increases, the price for their product has to increase.
Supporting Unions isn't in itself "American." Supporting capitalism is. This other organization found a place to manufacture their product for a cheaper price, therefore the retail value is reduced and winning market share over their competitor. Capitalism. Did you also forget the Americans that transported that product to this country, handled it at the port, loaded it onto tractor trailers, drivers that transported it to it's destination, and the American that delivered it to your door. Must have forgot about those Americans right.
Here's another example of Hans's hypocrisy:
He complains about these shirts being made "in sweatshops" in El Salvador. Does Hans bother to think about WHY such "sweatshops" likely exist in the first place? Of course not. Like any typical liberal hack, Hans ignores a whole piece of the puzzle.
What do I speak of? Simple: the reason "sweatshops"- and for that matter, OUTSOURCING- exists is because the cost of labor in America is too high. Why is it too high? Because liberals like Hans Reimer promote a Social Security payroll tax that has ballooned since its inception- one that he wants to blow up even further. Why hire ANYONE in America when you have to pay them an additional 12.4% just to make up for the payroll tax? And that's not even counting the ripoff that is Medicare/Medicaid.
If you REALLY want to do something patriotic, Hans, maybe you should get off your ass and improve this Social Security system WITHOUT TAXATION so it becomes more attractive to hire HERE instead of in El Salvador or India.
Check out the latest response from the pro-reform (finally a voice of reason speaking up for the 66% of youth who support personal acounts)...
http://www.rockthehypocrisy.com
"For example, my father works for an auto plant and makes over $100,000 a year treating the waste water there. His job does not warrant such high wages. But because he is part of the union, the auto maker has to pay them."
I take it this is what passes for youthful rebellion amongst the Right -- how absolutely pathetic.
I take it this is what passes for youthful rebellion amongst the Right -- how absolutely pathetic.
If you're going to call out pathetic, you might as well call it fairly and equally label Hans Reimer's post so.
Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
i wonder how many of those ridiculous shirts you have sold, Hans. What a joke? I heart SS. Even if the system worked perfect, I don't think I would wear a t-shirt supporting a gov't program. Whoever buys one of these shirts just doesn't have any fashion sense, not to mention a brain.
"Supporting Unions isn't in itself "American." Supporting capitalism is."
You may have a particular idea about what form of capitalism is explicitly "American", but not everyone agrees with you. I don't remember the Constitution prescribing a particular form...
Free trade is a good thing. Unions are apparently better?
To Mr. Steve, in response to this:
So, anon, you try this line of logic on your family?
I'm sure your dad, who is working with chemicals and poisons all day would love to know you think his job is worth less than his company does.
Have you EVER done more than sit on your ass all day?
Your Republican friends are parasites, you ought to be happy your father has given you a lifestyle which afforded you a college education without a stop in Iraq.
#1. I'm not the anonymous whose dad I complained about. I'm the one who called out the guy who called him pathetic, while not calling Hans pathetic, for BOTH sides of this issue on this board are getting ridiculous.
#2. If my "Republican friends" are parasites, then the Democrats and the likes of Hans are equally parasites, being that they tax ALL OF US 12.4% for a system which we get a negative yield out of. Most of us won't live long enough to get out of Social Security what we paid in. Now I ask you, what the hell kind of deal is that? The only "parasites" here are those of you who support big government taxation programs. These programs not only increase the cost of labor and thus hurt unemployment, but they also make it even more difficult for us to save our money.
Those of you on the left are just as incoherent as those of you on the far right. Some taxation is good. Progressive taxation is good. The Bush tax cuts went overboard. Corporate welfare is garbage. Social Security is trash, the payroll tax is a bad deal, the left has promoted programs that cost the individual American far too much, and the left's taxation and pro-union support has increased the cost of labor in the US to the point where all smart employers outsource.
BOTH SIDES are pathetic. I was once a Democrat, now I'm a Republican, but honestly, I'd rather be neither. At this point I'm choosing the lesser of two evils- and yes, the GOP is the lesser, given that Mr. Bush at least wants to give us a chance to get out of the cesspool that is Social Security under the current system.
Free trade is a good thing. Unions are apparently better?
Free trade is crap, and so are unions.
I've noticed that both parties have atrocious economic policies- the Democrats are worse than the GOP, but both are pretty damned bad. And people wonder why our economy has stayed stagnant for years.
What we need is a moderate who isn't a slut to either party, one who can stand up against both free trade AND unions, one who wants to reform Social Security AND limit corporate welfare, one who wants to cut spending AND cut taxes. Sadly, neither party has either of these characters, especially not the Democratic.
It's funny how people think they know the relationship my father and I have because of the post I made. You even went as far to try and say that I'm some ungrateful son that sits on his ass all day. If you only knew.
I was just trying to show that Unions have outlived their purpose and they PART of the reason for all this outsourcing.
If my "Republican friends" are parasites, then the Democrats and the likes of Hans are equally parasites, being that they tax ALL OF US 12.4% for a system which we get a negative yield out of. Most of us won't live long enough to get out of Social Security what we paid in.
Nice way to prove you don't know the difference between an investment vehicle and an insurance program.
Nice way to prove you don't know the difference between an investment vehicle and an insurance program.
Once again, you miss the point.
Leftists like you are the problem with this country, and you just proved why. To you people, everything is semantics. Everything comes down to how you play the words. It's not abortion, it's "pro choice." It's not 'increase taxes' to fix Social Security, it's 'increase revenues'. Euphemism after euphemism, distortion after distortion. The Democratic Party is a joke today, thanks to folks like you.
Look pal, I don't care what you want to call Social Security. If it's an insurance program, it's a pretty damned bad one. Hell, I just talked to a guy who's on Social Security now- he says he makes nowhere near enough off of it to do anything. If it's an investment program, it's even worse, given what I just said about yields.
Think about this one, nolo: if some private corporation tried to sell an "insurance program" like Social security, they'd be thrown into jail . Why? Because the system is a scam. What the hell kind of insurance policy makes you wait until the age of 70 (yes, the age will be 70 by the time we retire, or higher) to get ANYTHING out of the system? What the hell kind of system charges you your entire life to pay you only if you cross a certain point- one which many minorities never even reach? It's a scam, plain and simple.
Would YOU buy an insurance program that said "we're going to charge you 12.4% of your money every paycheck for your entire life, and when you become 70 years old, we'll start giving you benefits"? Would you really?
If so, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. In fact, let me know if there's more folks like you out there, maybe I SHOULD create some sort of "old age insurance program" like Social Security, and charge naive fools like you for it for the rest of your lives.
Insurance program my ass. Stop the euphemisms, stop the doublespeak, stop the semantic games. Social Security is what it is- a ripoff.
AFP's shirts were made by Hanes. Does Hanes use sweatshop labor?
Furthermore, since when was nationalism hip? Are we supposed to be angry that these shirts were made by an El Salvadorian?
Do you want poor hispanics to starve, Hans?
"Do you want poor hispanics to starve, Hans?"
yep, El Salvadorans need jobs too.
I wonder if the El Salvadorans also have to pay into a shitty scam of a program like Social Security.
If they're anything like Chile, they're a lot better off than we are!
It's not 12.4% of your pay check. Stop listening to the right wing echo chamber. It's 6.2 from employer and 6.2 from employee. If you are looking to a government run 401k program to make you rich in retirement than you are hypocritical to the ideals of conservative belief in government run programs. Instead of preaching for privitization of SS, preach for payroll tax cuts. Don't be a sheep that follows the Republican flock.
The retirement age isn't 70.
Wages in capitalism are determined by supply and demand. Those wages were agreed upon by the corporations that you choose to side as opposed to the family and friends that you fault for collectively bargaining. Instead of berating your father and others you should embrace and not playa hate on them for their accomplishments. Accomplishments that have grown our economy into the world economic superpower. If you want America to revert backwards to the good old days of the depression and the gilded age of low wages and no worker rights, like that of India and China, then you are completely foolish. You know neither how capitalism or our economy works. If prices and wages fell back to what you want them to be then everyones standard of living would be reduced throughout the world. This is far too complicated to explain to a simpleton like you.
Free trade = good. Free trade at the expense of americans = bad. We need free trade agreements that protect american workers and hold contries like india and china to the same standards that americans are held to environmentally and in accord with fair labor practices. To do otherwise is both a betrayel to america and the american worker.
Progressive Taxation like Adam Smith(the father of modern capitilist thought) explains in his book "Wealth of Nations". The preminate book on capitalism.
Freedom, privacy, opportunity, prosperity, open two-way communication, cooperation and community-building, trust, and honesty are values that we should get and deserve from our government. These aren't the values preached by conservatives who want you to fear and hate your government. Hate the governmnet that our founding fathers built for us. Again this goes back to the privitization of SS. Why would conservatives want a bureaucartic mess like SS privitization? This is against the priniciple of both conservative smaller government and reliance on government for money. If you truly want your money demand a payroll tax cut. Because privitization doesn't give you a dime.
Taxation is paying your dues or membership for having the opportunities to work and do business in our Free society that is America. If you join a conutry club or a community center you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the free-weights but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise it won't be maintained and will fall apart. People who avoid taxes, like corporations that move to Bermuda, are not paying their dues to their country. It is patriotic to be a taxpayer. It is traiterous to desert our country and not pay your dues, especially in a time of war.
Perhaps Bill Gates, Sr. said it best. In arguing to keep the inheritance tax, he pointed out that he and Bill Jr. did not invent the internet. they just used it-to make billions. there is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the Judicial system, where 9/10ths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayers investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men. The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back. Do you believe that those that came before us and after us should foot the bill for the me generation?
"Look pal, I don't care what you want to call Social Security. If it's an insurance program, it's a pretty damned bad one."
SS isn't supposed to make one rich. It has more than served it's purpose of both a safety net for derpession and insurance program for people. This was spelled out by Keynes. It has reduced poverty amongst seniors from over 60% to under 10%. I would call that a success. For a so called conservative, I find it hard to believe that you would support privitization of SS. This is both a big government program(something conservstives hate) and a welfare program(what happened to personal responsibility for ones own finances and retiremnt?). Instead of following the republican flock demand a payroll tax cut. That would at least be in line with your conservative beliefs.
"the Democrats are worse than the GOP, but both are pretty damned bad. And people wonder why our economy has stayed stagnant for years.
What we need is a moderate who isn't a slut to either party, one who can stand up against both free trade AND unions, one who wants to reform Social Security AND limit corporate welfare, one who wants to cut spending AND cut taxes. Sadly, neither party has either of these characters, especially not the Democratic."
It's amazing that you calim that Dems are worse but for the most part you described the economic policies of Bill Clinton and the Dems who were able to balance the budget by rasiing taxes on the wealthy. NAFTA was and is bad but this agreemnet can be renegotiated. All trade agreements must protect american workers and hold contries like india and china to the same standards that americans are held to environmentally and in accord with fair labor practices. To do otherwise is both a betrayel to america and the american worker.
As far as your claim that free trade is bad, you have no understanding of economics. This is probably why you believe that Repubs are better than Dems. Because you subscribe the beleif that tax cuts for the wealthy are good.
Erik-
Number one, drop the bullshit. Seriously. It is NOT 6.2% of your paycheck. It may TECHNICALLY be, but you're a blind fool if you're going to sit here and try to tell me that employers don't factor in their share of social security taxes into your pre-payment salary. The fact of the matter is that they do- so you can play the 6.2/12.4 game all you want, but in the end it is 12.4.
In your manic ignorance of this issue, you missed my key point that employers do not want to hire domestically because workers in America cost so much more than foreign ones- and that comes down to a few key things, one of them being MASSIVE PAYROLL TAXES. Because employees have to pay all these taxes, they demand more money to keep up with cost of living, thus costing employers more and more. That's why they hire in India instead of here.
This is the problem with leftists like you- you support big government tax program after tax program, all the while complaining about how the American worker gets screwed, without even realizing that YOUR OWN POLICIES are the reason we all get screwed in the first place.
And please, quit the bitching about "privatization." I don't support privatization. I support the choice for some of us to take a smaller Social Security payment, in exchange for the opportunity to invest part of our Social Security taxes in the market to get a bigger gain. That is NOT privatization. Look up the word privatization, and see for yourself. I've posted the definition dozens of times, but ignorant leftists such as you seem oblivious to it.
You know, I used to be on the left, just like you. But you know what drove me away? The fact that you people play disgusting political games with EVERYTHING. The President tries to reform Social Security, you immediately label it "privatization" and "destruction" of the system. You people launch yourselves on a self-righteous quest to "save" Social Security. You people start calling it an "insurance program" even though every Senior I know hates the program, especially recent retirees that paid so much into the system. You people act like it's a 6.2% payroll tax, when you know full well it's 12.4%. You people act like the trust fund is filled with trillions of dollars in cash that will save the system without tax increases.
You people demagogue issue after issue, prostitute minority after minority, play semantic game after semantic game. It is absolutely disgusting, and it is atrocious. Those of you on the left are the most disgusting political movement that exists in America today. In the 1990s, it was the Republicans, manically obsessed with impeachment and harassing the President. Now, it's you guys, who stand in the way of progress, twisting and turning every issue to the point where the American voter is either too scared to support reform, or just plain is confused.
Erik, you're not part of the solution. You're part of the problem. The fact that you just tried to tell us it was a 6.2%, not 12.4% tax, and the fact that you keep on trying to call this "privatization" shows how little you truly know. Either that, or it shows how much of a dangerous political demagogue you truly are.
And by the way, trade agreements do little to protect the American worker. You as a liberal Democrat might have even understood that, but I guess your understanding is so little that you can't even understand one of your party's main talking points. Go ask some IT workers if they're "protected." Go ask the automobile industry workers if they're "protected." Go ask clothing makers if they're "protected." Erik, you show a total misunderstanding of the real world.
Don't try to argue with me about economics, Erik. You're the clown how just cited Keynes. Keynesian economics is dead, and so is the glorious "insurance" program that you call Social Security. Now, it's just a scam. Go do some math before you start attacking my economics. Take a look at how much money YOU will get out of this system come 2041, that is, if you're still alive then. If not, it's a big fat zero.
And another thing, Erik. You're being such a tool that you didn't even bother to READ what I was saying, so I'm going to clarify a few things:
1. I never said the retirement age was 70. I said that it WILL BE 70. Hell, you liberals are the folks who want to fix the system through such measures instead of using personal accounts, so I figured you would have known that by now. Start reading, Erik. Clearly you're showing problems doing that.
2. I support keeping the estate tax. I also support keeping taxes higher for the rich. What I'm against is REGRESSIVE TAXATION like Social Security. Social Security is the most regressive tax in America, one that taxes the lower 80% of the population the most, forcing them to pay more than they even pay in federal income tax. All for what? A program that MIGHT pay them a few checks if they live long enough? It's a bullshit scam, especially for young workers. Once again, do the math and see the negative return the young worker will now get on Social Security. And that's not even factoring in the taxes that we're going to have to pay to keep up with the trust fund after 2017.
Pull your head out of your ass, Erik.
Also, don't sit there and tell me what should and should not be my "conservative ideals," Erik. You don't have the least bit of an understand of what is and is not conservative, given the drivel that I've been reading from you. Hell, you don't even understand my politics, even though I pointed out my beliefs dozens of times in the past few posts.
I'm not a right wing conservative. I'm a moderate who is registered GOP, who was once registered Democrat but left because of your party's lack of ideas and solutions- particularly on this issue. I support the estate tax, I oppose most of Bush's tax cuts, I oppose corporate welfare, I oppose most free trade agreements (and yes, I firmly believe they hurt the American worker), yet I also support Social Security personal accounts. I'm a moderate, so don't tell me to sit here and be a right wing crackpot who always asks for no taxation.
A payroll tax cut would serve no one any good. It would hurt the system and give a smaller payout to everyone, and some of those people would be dumb enough not to save or invest the money they got back from the cut. Democrats like you would whine like all hell about that, and would want to play the role of big government daddy, so a payroll tax cut is out of the question. The next best solution is the CHOICE, the OPTION, for someone to take a small part of their payroll taxes and invest it instead of rely on the pitiful government return on traditional Social Security.
Such a deal gives them the chance to have more retirement money. And no, that's not a get rich quick scheme, it's a "secure your retirement" scheme- and there's nothing wrong with that. The American worker deserves the opportunity to have a better retirement than the pitiful one Social Security can offer. The American worker deserves a better deal for the massive taxes they pay into this system. The American worker deserves a system that does not demand tax increase after tax increase. The current system offers none of these- the Democratic Party offers none of these- the President does. It's that simple.
And yes, I've thoroughly researched this issue. I've given speeches on it, written papers on it, debated on it, the list goes on and on- so don't sit there and tell me I'm echoing any "talking points." The fact is that the President's plan offers more opportunity and offers more of a solution than ANYTHING the Democrats or the likes of you have offered to date.
"The fact is that the President's plan offers more opportunity and offers more of a solution than ANYTHING the Democrats or the likes of you have offered to date."
What's the President's plan? There has been no proposal or policy made or given to congress. Republicans are in power, Democrats don't get to set the agenda.
"What I'm against is REGRESSIVE TAXATION like Social Security. Social Security is the most regressive tax in America, one that taxes the lower 80% of the population the most, forcing them to pay more than they even pay in federal income tax."
Support a repeal of the estate tax and tax cuts for the top 1%. Raise taxes on the top 1% like Clinton did which balanced our budget and every Republican voted against.
"And by the way, trade agreements do little to protect the American worker. You as a liberal Democrat might have even understood that, but I guess your understanding is so little that you can't even understand one of your party's main talking points. Go ask some IT workers if they're "protected." Go ask the automobile industry workers if they're "protected." Go ask clothing makers if they're "protected." Erik, you show a total misunderstanding of the real world."
That's exactly what I said. Dems and Repubs both failed on this. I am a former IT worker.
"In your manic ignorance of this issue, you missed my key point that employers do not want to hire domestically because workers in America cost so much more than foreign ones- and that comes down to a few key things, one of them being MASSIVE PAYROLL TAXES. Because employees have to pay all these taxes, they demand more money to keep up with cost of living, thus costing employers more and more. That's why they hire in India instead of here.
This is the problem with leftists like you- you support big government tax program after tax program, all the while complaining about how the American worker gets screwed, without even realizing that YOUR OWN POLICIES are the reason we all get screwed in the first place."
And who raised the payroll tax to it's current rate and raised the medicare tax? Who created this SS Trust Fund that you speak of? Who headed the commission on SS and informed this President to raise the payroll tax rates? A little bit of history would suit you anony's in the debate. Who said that the non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government" are worthless IOU's" and "There is no trust"? Who has $4.95 million in Treasury notes? This is the same President who essentially said Treasury notes were just worthless IOUs.
Come up with a name for your ignorance.
Erik, you are the typical hothead liberal. You are the perfect example of the modern day liberal. I bet the average person can't stand being around you for more than 10 minutes, unless of course you are at a Howard Dean fundraiser for a socialist candidate for senator in Vermont.
Semantics, semantics, semantics. That is all the democratic party is left with. What is the president's plan? Is this your intellectual contribution? Thanks for the input, but I think I will continue to talk with the "big" people.
I still think it's interesting that just because you read a book by Adam Smith, who also died in 1790, you are the know all of economics. So, let me get your logic straight. The tax system should never change because Adam Smith in 1750 said the progressive tax is the only way we should operate. Brilliant!!!!! Think where we would be if we followed your logic. I think you may need to read a more current book and remove your lips from Adam Smith's shriveled old ass.
For everyone who wants to tax the rich in this country, the best way to do this is through a consumption tax. Many of the ultra rich retire early in life, meaning they don't pay income tax or SS taxes because they don't have an income. If there were a consumption tax, they would continue to pay taxes on everything they purchase (yachts, houses, cars, etc). Currently, all the regular hard working middle class pay income taxes and Social Security taxes for the majority of their lives. Let's not forget the drug dealers in this country, which is estimated to be a 400 billion dollar industry, that basically get a tax free ride. They would also be brought into the tax world. It's so simple that it is only a matter of time until the average joe figures it out, then it is over for the angry Erik's out there.
Cosumption Tax is good for everyone except Adam Smith and Erik.
"If there were a consumption tax, they would continue to pay taxes on everything they purchase (yachts, houses, cars, etc)....Let's not forget the drug dealers in this country, which is estimated to be a 400 billion dollar industry, that basically get a tax free ride."
Truely proving your ignorance again. The wealthy and the drug dealers already do pay taxes on consumption, it's called a sales tax and as I said previously even conservastives beleive that the consumption tax is a sham.
That's hearsay to talk about Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, in that manner amongst Republicans. Are you against capitalism? What are you?
Why not go rail against the anony's on this thread who all claim to be against Bush's tax cuts for the rich but for SS? Get your facts straight if you want to have a discussion with me or anyone for that matter. People can't stand being around you for more than 10 minutes if you don't have your facts straight. Which according to your post's is everyday.
You truly are clueless if these are your thoughts of Adam Smith, irresponsible american. It's nice to see you did a whole days worth of research on Mr. Smith though. Because that way you can really have an informed opinion of him. This is what the reality based community has to deal with, the faith based community who deal in their beleifs as opposed to facts.
I love erik's logic, when the argument presents facts that were written in the 1700's by our American Founders he dismisses them, yet for some odd reason he wants to be Adam Smith's patron saint of the progressive tax.
Notice he never came back and answered the 12.4/6.2% rebuttal by anon? Its the same old story... erik believes, as do many other liberals, that corporations pay taxes. Of course any business owner laughs at this idea, and when presented with the truth erik denies it.. or are we to now believe that erik agrees and has seen the light?
BTW erik, I'm curious... if the rich already pay a consumption tax through the sales tax then what if the rich live in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon? Kinda kills your argument doesn't it?
Oh, for those who don't know the states listed above have no sales tax. And if I were counting on erik making policy and relying only on the sales tax to procure taxes from me then I'd make sure I did all my shopping online, or in one of those states above that have no sales tax... funny, but with a national consumption tax that loophole doesn't exist.
"if the rich live in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon?"
Not all the rich live in those states. That's idiot logic. The kind that you possess. And I'm not going to play the right wing echo chamber talking points with you illogical fools that insist that people pay 12.4% for payroll taxes. Any person with an ounce of logic can look at their paycheck and see that they pay 6.2%. The costs of training and healthcare are much more burdensome on an employer in the hiring process. Ask any business owner that.
The problem with you is that you misinterpret what our founders wrote in the constitution. You provide your facts from the right wing echo chamber. I provide my fatcs from government sources, books on history, and supreme court precedent. This is why I tell you to read and research from many different sources not just the right wing echo chamber. You still fail to do this.
Notice how the fools avoid my questions like the plague. While I answer them all. The people that sit on the sidelines and read can see who is honest and who follows the right wing echo chamber.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/HYPER-FINAL.html?.
A great article from David Cay Johnston on the subject of inequality of taxes and how a very small percentage are pulling the wool over the majorities eyes.
F#*%$ed up da link. Here goes. Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind. Great read for anyone interested on the subject.
Original Liberal,
I'm not talking about butterflies. See how the echo chamber makes you think about non-sensical issues when I say environment. Evironmental policies that are imposed on american business cost money. These are quality of life issues. Things like clean drinking water, waste removal and disposal, not polluting our(the peoples) air, etc. If American comapnies competition can subvert these policies and costs incurred by american or european or japanese or any industrialized countries business' environemntal policies it puts us all at a disadvatage in a fair global economy. It is the American governments duty to defend the american people from these unfair pratices. They must do that by inacting trade agreements that protect the american worker. Just as japanese and european and other industialized countries must do for their citizens. By inacting these trade agreements which protect our workers, they will protect the workers and people of burgeoning economies. This will level the playing field for all. Fairness, opportunity, protection, honesty. These are values that we should demand from our government. So you can talk about butterflies but I could care less. You can talk about cultural values but you listen to what and how others paint a picture of liberals/progressives. I am interested in the american workers and american business first and foremost on issues of trade and labor and environmental policies.
"Some actions, like genocide, are so hideous we have to step in to stop them. When a government kills millions of its people, the world community must stop it. When a government kills millions of butterflies, we shouldn’t call out the heavy artillery to stop them. I like butterflies, but they aren’t equal to humans."
I completely agree.
So you put the interests of chinese textile workers ahead of american textile workers?
Actually non-partisan: Students for Saving Social Security. www.SecureOurFuture.org
And who raised the payroll tax to it's current rate and raised the medicare tax? Who created this SS Trust Fund that you speak of? Who headed the commission on SS and informed this President to raise the payroll tax rates? A little bit of history would suit you anony's in the debate. Who said that the non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government" are worthless IOU's" and "There is no trust"? Who has $4.95 million in Treasury notes? This is the same President who essentially said Treasury notes were just worthless IOUs.
I don't know what you're trying to get at here, Erik, but I'll go ahead and answer your questions. ALL of the above changes were made thanks to leftists such as yourself- only back in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan was the President, but even he had advocated PRAs way back then- but when he became President, it was clear that he could do nothing to promote that, because liberal clowns like you called SS the "third rail" of politics. What happened? We ended up with another tax hike. Don't even TRY to imply that Republicans were the ones behind Social Security tax hikes- those are solely pinned on DEMOCRATS and liberals going all the way back to this pathetic program's founding.
I also note how you bring up the trust fund, and try to legitimize it by saying that it has the "full faith and credit of the government." That doesn't mean anything, guy- in fact, it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the value of that trust fund. There are bonds in there, yes, and all this "full faith and credit" means is that when those bonds are cashed in, the government WILL have to come up with money to pay them off with. That is why the President calls it an IOU, because IOUs work the very same way. All the trust fund is is a guaranteed IOU- one that WILL be paid back, but one that WILL demand revenue from elsewhere. And yes, that means deficit spending or tax hikes, to the amount of $5 trillion. Get that through your thick skull, and maybe we can have a conversation here.
Liberals like you who throw around the myth that the trust fund can save the system simply because it has "full faith and credit" are the same ignoramuses who sent this system spiraling into disaster decades ago. Liberals like you are a disgrace to this younger generation- unfortunately, they're not going to see that until it's too late, when their pocketbooks get slapped around some more.
Allow me to end my post with a typical erik-ism:
"Come up with a name for your ignorance."
OH! I know what I'll call it! ERIK!
One more post, because Erik just keeps on spewing garbage rhetoric that simply isn't correct.
Not all the rich live in those states. That's idiot logic. The kind that you possess. And I'm not going to play the right wing echo chamber talking points with you illogical fools that insist that people pay 12.4% for payroll taxes. Any person with an ounce of logic can look at their paycheck and see that they pay 6.2%. The costs of training and healthcare are much more burdensome on an employer in the hiring process. Ask any business owner that.
First of all, Erik, my dad IS a business owner, and he pays 12.4%. I believe someone pointed out that self-employed folks have to pay an immediate 12.4%, but you ignored it. I'm going to repeat myself on your 6.2% argument again, because clearly you're so ignorant that you didn't even bother paying any attention last time:
TWELVE POINT FOUR PERCENT OF YOUR SALARY GOES INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. It's that simple. Go ask any business owner or employer how they calculate employers' wages. If you make $40,000, TWELVE POINT FOUR OF THAT is going to the federal government for Social Security. ON YOUR BI-WEEKLY PAYCHECK, you may see 6.2% being taken out, but that's because the employer has ALREADY FACTORED IN THE OTHER 6.2% ON YOUR INITIAL WAGE, reducing it to compensate. Some people's paychecks reflect the full 12.4%, and mine have since the beginning of time.
Quit throwing around garbage rhetoric, guy. It only goes to show how disingenuous you are in this debate. 12.4% of one's salary goes into Social Security. It's that simple.
The only "illogical fool" here is you- falling for the government's bait-and-switch here, trying to make it sound like it's only 6.2% when in MATHEMATICAL REALITY, it is 12.4%.
Here you go Erik:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Social_Security_tax
. The Social Security portion of this tax is 6.2% of the first $90,000 (in 2005) of an employee's income paid directly by the employer, and an additional 6.2% of the first $90,000 (in 2005) deducted from the employee's paycheck, yielding an effective rate of 12.4% of an employee's income.
Point proven that you're focusing only on the 6.2% to make your liberal case look better, when in reality it is 12.4%. The only difference between the 2 parts is that one is immediately paid off by the employer, while the other is deducted from your paycheck- but BOTH come from your pay.
Being that Erik has a very thick partisan liberal skull, I feel that I must continue the smackdown. So, here we go again:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm
(That's a good paper to read, guy. That is, if you read, which you clearly don't going by your previous responses to people.)
In 2005, workers and employers will pay payroll taxes totaling 15.3 percent of the first $90,000 of income and 2.9 percent of income above that amount. The $90,000 dividing line is called the “earnings limit”—sometimes referred to as the “wage cap.” Of that 15.3 percent total, 10.6 percent of income pays for Social Security’s retirement and survivors program, and 1.8 percent pays for Social Security’s disability program.
Not convinced yet? OH WAIT! THERE'S MORE! Here's where I get to what I've been saying for a good 15 posts now:
In most cases, only half of the Social Security taxes that a worker pays are shown on the paycheck stub. Employers also pay an equal amount of payroll taxes on the worker’s behalf. As far as the employer is concerned, these additional taxes are part of the worker’s pay.
The above proves my following points:
1. That sometimes 12.4% is shown on the paycheck, other times only 6.2, but in the end it is still 12.4%
2. That employers factor in their 6.2% on your salary. The people who run Social Security itself even understand this, which is why they tax self-employed folks the full 12.4%; if it was only 6.2% per worker, they'd be fair and only charge self-employed people 6.2%- but they don't.
3. That YOU are the one being illogical here, so stop yelling at everyone else.
Game over.
Erik, you are awesome. Thank the Lord you exist. I get so much entertainment out of your hothead posts.
I guess you and your democratic party are just relegated to semantics for arguments and debates. I would like to respond to your following post:
"Truely proving your ignorance again. The wealthy and the drug dealers already do pay taxes on consumption, it's called a sales tax and as I said previously even conservastives beleive that the consumption tax is a sham."
Great!!! This is your answer to my suggestion that we move all taxes, including income and SS taxes, to a consumption tax? Brilliant, Erik? And you ridicule everyone else for not understanding economics. Let me break it down for you.
The majority of the super rich retire early in life and therefore stop collecting a check as income. In effect, these ultra rich don't pay anything when it comes to income tax or SS tax. My suggestion would be to move the income tax and SS tax into the sales tax. That would mean increasing the sales tax. I wouldn't stop at the income tax and SS tax, I would also roll the payroll tax and any other tax into the sales tax as well. This would mean that no business, drug dealer, or corrupt citizen could dodge their responsiblity when it comes to taxes. This would help shift the burden off the middle and lower class and move it towards the upper class. This would solve the solvency problem with SS in a heart beat, as well as the current deficit due to the increase in funds going to the gov't from the tax dodgers that the current system has created.
Is this making sense to you now, Erik? I know it is hard to understand, but I thought since you read Adam Smith's book that you would have a vast understanding of the economy and the current tax system. I know you don't agree with the consumption tax, but at least be honest in discussing it.
Oh yeah, of course both parties don't support a consumption tax, it would disrupt both party's power. This is going to take a ground swell from the people to get this passed. The mountain is steep, but it can be climbed.
You have identified your own major problem. You obviously don't support anything unless the Democratic party says it's ok to support it. Me on the other hand, I will support anything that is better for this country and for the people regardless what our almighty parties tell us. I think you need to stop with the echo chamber accusation nonsense and start looking in the mirror inside your democratic echo chamber.
Look forward to your next comedy bit.
One more thing, you have even managed to get a liberal to argue against you in here. Great job.
Hans, it isn't "badass" for Rock the Vote to propagandize for some old-fashioned, establishment government program, it's pathetic. It's interesting how Rock the Vote simply mirrors the mainstream world of rock music: it has become a preachy voice for establishment power disguised as "rebellion". So much for reform, dreaming big, or trying to let people put on their own clothes without the nanny state interfering. RTV would rather stick its head in the sand and mutter "there is no crisis, there is no crisis..."
erik, I need not reply due to the diligence of the other posters, but again you have yet to take my advice and go talk to a successful local businessman (or woman) about how they factor payroll for new employees to cover payroll taxes. Go ask them and you'll find out that whatever the government places on the shoulders of business gets put directly onto the employees and customers in the form of higher costs for goods and services and lower wages.
I'm not lying or echoing some right wing talking points, I'm telling you this as a business owner, and as someone who worked for years as a self-employed worker. I know how the game is played, and so does the rest of corporate America. Just because you don't want to see the truth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
To the first anony with the wikipedia definition. You left out the rest of the paragraph that didn't suit your needs.
"Self-employed people are responsible for the entire tax.(meaning that those that aren't self employed only pay 6.2%)The income cutoff is adjusted yearly for inflation and other factors.
If an employee pays excess taxes, due to multiple jobs being held by the employee during a single calendar year, the employee will receive a refund of the excess taxes withheld from their paychecks on their Form 1040. The excess taxes paid by employers is not returned to the employers."
Don't let facts get in the way of your crusade though.
"Second anony, In most cases, only half of the Social Security taxes that a worker pays are shown on the paycheck stub. Employers also pay an equal amount of payroll taxes on the worker’s behalf. As far as the employer is concerned, these additional taxes are part of the worker’s pay."
It's from the heritage foundation. Nuff said. Get a reliable non-partisan source such as a government website. Read and think for yourself. Thus I tell you anony's to get a name for your ignorance instead of posting under a collective anony and stop spouting RNC talkings points.
To the anony that claims Liberals are the root of payrol tax hikes in the 1983. You're a joke. This concept was started by Rush and has been echoed until you beleived the propaganda. I'll answer all the questions for you dummy. Reagan raised the payroll tax. Reagan with Greenspan created the trust fund. Greenspan headed the commission.
"Who said that the non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government" are worthless IOU's" and "There is no trust"?"
Bush. But according to the Bureau of Public Debt at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sec/secfaq.htm
Treasury securities are safe. They're backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.
Also you can look no further than the the constitution fourteenth amendment section 4 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.'
But the most damning evidence against Bush is this question: Who has $4.95 million in Treasury notes? This is the same President who essentially said Treasury notes were just worthless IOUs.
Yes Bush has 4.95mil in worthless iou's.
The consumption tax isn't going to take a groundswell of anything from anyone because it clears the wealthy elites from paying their fair share. The burden falls on the majority. You continue to harp about the consumption tax being progressive but offer no proof. Because it's only parrotted by the far right wing.
As far as the logic of the anony who likes to think that employees pay 12.4%. Show me the proof not the the opinion of an editable dictionary or a right wing website. See an understanding of economics would do you some good. The laws of supply and demand. I think Sean said that he is a business owner. You must be a bad one if you can't understand this concept. Wages heed to the laws of supply and demand. Wages are not set by business owners. The market dictates the what the wage earner will receive for pay. If your logic were true and the 6.2% of the employer payroll tax were the determining factor of ones pay then there would have been a sharp decline of employee pay after the passage of the SS reform act of 1983. Or there would have been a steady decline in employee pay after 1983. Go find that evidence and show it me. Facts are a hard thing for conservatives to swallow. You just got smacked beatch. Thus the meme you keep repeating is a right wing echo chamber talking point to dissuade public opinion on taxation that isn't supported by fact but rather by ignorance. As if getting rid of the payroll tax will raise everyone's wages. If you understand why the talking point is spread then you can understand that economically it doesn't hold water. It's spread to persuade the public without telling them the truth, facts, or economics of the debate. Thus you must read and research but from many sources not just one side or the other.
I'm on the side of the truth. Dems have allowed, at the state level, taxes to become very regressive. This regressivity at the state level and flattening at the federal level have made the whole of our taxes to become in essence flat. I could produce the report by our government that shows this but I will not continue to provide evidence that you neither understanding or respect. I'm sure if the echo told you to beleive it you would though. You've ben propagandized.
One more ignorant illogical rant to put down by Sean:
"Go ask them and you'll find out that whatever the government places on the shoulders of business gets put directly onto the employees and customers in the form of higher costs for goods and services and lower wages."
With business' moving their workforce out of country to lower cost of wages, importing lower cost materials from foreign countries, reducing or eliminating their taxes thorugh offshore tax havens, etc., why haven't the prices of goods gone down or the wages of the remaining employees increased? Thus more proof that you parrot the right wing.
Again no one seems to debate my position on taxes, so I'll post it again.
Freedom, privacy, opportunity, prosperity, open two-way communication, cooperation and community-building, trust, and honesty are values that we should get and deserve from our government. These aren't the values preached by conservatives who want you to fear and hate your government. Hate the governmnet that our founding fathers built for us. Again this goes back to the privitization of SS. Why would conservatives want a bureaucartic mess like SS privitization? This is against the priniciple of both conservative smaller government and reliance on government for money. If you truly want your money demand a payroll tax cut. Because privitization doesn't give you a dime.
Taxation is paying your dues or membership for having the opportunities to work and do business in our Free society that is America. If you join a conutry club or a community center you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the free-weights but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise it won't be maintained and will fall apart. People who avoid taxes, like corporations that move to Bermuda, are not paying their dues to their country. It is patriotic to be a taxpayer. It is traiterous to desert our country and not pay your dues, especially in a time of war.
Perhaps Bill Gates, Sr. said it best. In arguing to keep the inheritance tax, he pointed out that he and Bill Jr. did not invent the internet. they just used it-to make billions. there is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the Judicial system, where 9/10ths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayers investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men. The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back. Do you believe that those that came before us and after us should foot the bill for the me generation?
If you all produced names I could show you all how the brain of one progressive/liberal/populist(or whatever other label you want to brand me) can win with facts not beliefs. Face to face I wouldn't even bother with the 30% crowd(the crowd that has been propagandized and listens to values instead of facts), I would just kick the shit out of each of you.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I think, regardless of what our views are here, that we can all agree on one general conclusion in the past 51 posts- that Erik is, bar none, the single most ignorant and uninformed person that posts on this blog. No other poster here, liberal or conservative, comes even close to the disingenuous behavior displayed by Erik.
Erik was confronted with not one, not two, but three different sources, all pointing out that 12.4%, not 6.2%, of an employee's earnings go into Social Security. Not one, not two, not three, but at least FOUR people tried to tell him how the system worked- that employers immediately paid 6.2%, with the second 6.2% being shown on most paychecks. None of that got through to Erik.
You see, that is because Erik lives in a black and white world. To Erik, what he chooses to see is his reality. Erik selectively ignores what he wants to ignore, Erik selectively interprets what he wants to interpret, and Erik redefines and distorts anything he wants to his whim. Erik is a classic example of a partisan hack- someone who will not adjust their views to fit reality, but instead will adjust reality to fit their views.
He is no better than any far-right or far-left partisan- no better than the Ann Coulters and Michael Moores of this world. The last thing this debate needs is folks like Erik who distort and dismantle the entire argument just to promote their own predetermined point of view. For those of you who want the facts, I urge you to look at various websites- not just one- to determine what the truth is. Wikipedia, the CBO, the White House archives, and the Social Security Administration are all good sources. We can determine the following from them:
1. That 12.4% of employees' earnings go to Social Security; some is taxed immediately, some is paid in your paycheck. Employers factor in their 6.2% into an employee's taxes, thus making it 12.4%. The federal government understands this, which is why they charge self-employed people 12.4% immediately instead of just 6.2%.
2. That the 1983 tax hikes for Social Security were a compromise agreement between Democrats and Ronald Reagan. Further research shows that Ronald Reagan was not in support of tax hikes for Social Security, and instead actually supported something similar to the Bush plan in the 1970s. Once Democrats labeled Social Security the "third rail" of politics, he had no choice but to go along with them in 1983 or face sure political suicide.
3. The Clinton administration realized the problems the current Social Security system faced; his commission even recommended personal accounts as one of the potential solutions. Democrat economist Robert Pozen includes PRAs in his plan, which is combined with progressive indexing. All of these plans keep the payroll tax rate at 12.4%, instead of higher like many far left liberals would require under the current system.
4. The Trust Fund treasury bonds may be backed by the full "faith and credit" of the US government, but these treasury bonds will demand money from general revenue if they are indeed cashed in. This will require $5 trillion in deficit spending or tax hikes from 2017-2041.
Erik is wrong on all accounts. It isn't because of his political affiliation, it isn't because of the way he's presenting his arguments, it isn't because of the side he takes on this issue- it's just his distortion and manipulation of the facts. Erik has been blasted by both liberals and conservatives on this blog- that, in itself, shows how out of touch he really is.
Folks like Erik aren't part of the solution. They're part of the problem, because they have nothing to offer besides insults, attacks, demagoguery, distorted arguments, and hackery to promote their own agenda. Folks like Erik, unfortunately, are too common in today's political arena. And it is thanks to folks like Erik why we never get meaningful reform in anything in America- and why Americans remain so confused and unknowledgeable about the issues.
erik -
"With business' moving their workforce out of country to lower cost of wages, importing lower cost materials from foreign countries, reducing or eliminating their taxes thorugh offshore tax havens, etc., why haven't the prices of goods gone down or the wages of the remaining employees increased? Thus more proof that you parrot the right wing."
Proof? What proof have you provided? I see no links or statistical evidence to back up your OPINION. In fact what goods and services are you basing your analysis on? Most companies that are outsourcing their labor are doing so to stay competitive, many of these companies found that they were overpaying IT positions and phone center personnel (I know because I use to work as one during college back in the .com era). To stay competitive companies need to keep their costs down on goods and services to remain viable investments for their share holders. As much as you hate it companies are in businesses to make money and outsourcing keeps them viable, through lowering overhead.
I'm sorry you don't want to take an active roll in finding out how businesses are run, but its not my fault that you want to remain ignorant on such issues, and it certainly makes you look stupid when you call me ignorant for quoting standard business operating facts as 'parroting the right wing'.
You still can't materialize any proof to counter anything I've said, all you have are your opinions on how things are run while you spit at other members for providing links to organizations you don't like or links in general that don't add up under your sense of logic.
It's good to see the level of intelligent debate increase this week:
"Private accounts are just a way to suck money out of the system and turn it into another form of welfare, which assholes like you will then demagogue out of existence since it's just another program for the poor, who don't have lobbyists or think tanks of the kind which are no doubt fronting you. "
Mercury, perhaps you can enlighten us as to how a program which will allow you to keep your own money for retirement is a form of welfare? I'm at a loss to see the socialistic trend in investing one's own money for one's self interests versus the current Social Security program where each individual pays into the system to support current retirees without any guarantee of future benefits.
Of course, perhaps its just the 'asshole' side of me that gets in the way of realizing the sheer truth in your logic (happens with erik's posts) so I'll continue to work hard to figure out how saving my money for me is an act of welfare.
I also particularly found this paragraph to be among some of RTV's best posts:
"NOBODY wants to get rid of social security except for you paid whores and the kinds of sociopaths who also want to get rid of child labor and civil rights laws, or those that are so goddamn greedy that they'd sell their own grandmothers to the glue factory rather than float her cat food money. "
You're absolutely right, I'd love to get rid of child labor, I think sweat shops are horrible places for kids, of course with people like you around to ensure we 'loose' I guess little Oliver will just have to get back on the line for his 50 cents a day. As for my grandmother, lets leave her out of this, the market clearly isn't doing well enough (according to Dr. Dean) to bear the kind of return I expect an 80 year old woman would net me at the Glue Factory, so her trip is postponed another financial quarter or two.
In all seriousness, how come its been those supporting Social Security that have championed the idea that fixing Social Security will in fact help them in the future because, God forbid, if their parents grow too old they'd rather the Government take care of them then the old folks cramping their style at the crib? We went over that argument a few weeks ago and it ended with one poster claiming my own attempts at helping a family member get off the government welfare rolls was a selfish and disrespectful action on my part (guess us 'right-wingers' are damned if we do and damed if we don't). So why don't you just go back to the utopian bubble you've created for yourself and listen to Howard Dean a few decibels louder to drown out all of us "right-wing, faker, hypocrite whores."
Weak, Hans. Very weak.
I agree with one thing in your post below, mercury. I do want to get rid of child labor. Call me a sociopath if you will, but I don't think we should be encouraging child labor.
"NOBODY wants to get rid of social security except for you paid whores and the kinds of sociopaths who also want to get rid of child labor"
Mercury, looks like your taking a break from the beer and wife beating to enlighten us with some deep thought and colorful adjectives. Thanks, man. Needed the laugh.
I also like how you say the president doesn't have a plan, but yet you describe his plan in the next paragraph. WOW, this is getting interesting. You must be related to Erik.
"NOBODY wants to get rid of social security except for you paid whores and the kinds of sociopaths who also want to get rid of child labor and civil rights laws, or those that are so goddamn greedy that they'd sell their own grandmothers to the glue factory rather than float her cat food money."
I beg to differ.
In fact, if you were to point out how the Social Security system works to most Americans, you'd get a majority saying that they'd rather just keep their 12.4%. I know you'd DEFINITELY get a majority of the youth saying it.
Also, I fail to see what child labor laws or civil rights laws have to do with Social Security. Drop the demagoguery. You liberals are starting to go overboard.
Because the system is a scam. What the hell kind of insurance policy makes you wait until the age of 70 (yes, the age will be 70 by the time we retire, or higher) to get ANYTHING out of the system? What the hell kind of system charges you your entire life to pay you only if you cross a certain point- one which many minorities never even reach? It's a scam, plain and simple.
I guess you've never heard of SSI or SSD, or social security death benefits, or any of that other stuff that comes with the social security system. That would explain a lot. Oh-- and why don't you explain to me what you get out of your car insurance, or your homeowners' insurance, or any other form of casualty insurance you may possibly be paying for that doesn't involve some form of triggering event (usually one you'd rather not actually experience).
Oh, as for the 6.2 percent/12.4 percent "debate," how many of you folks actually believe that employers would actually pay their half of the payroll tax to employees as wages if they weren't required to pay it towards social security? Those of you that do, please send me your personal bank account information, because I have this buddy in Nigeria who's looking for help transferring some funds out of the country . . .
Mercury here, taking a break from the wife-beating and beer (hah! good one!)
So I left out the word "laws" in my post. Whoop-de-do, glad you had a chuckle, losers.
You still didn't have anything substantive to say. You still don't get that most sane people realize that under the current corporate culture, the stock market is a total crapshoot and breeding ground for thieves and liars -- and that's what you want people to base their rock-bottom retirement on.
You just don't get the "social" part, do you? You don't understand the notion of investing in a society, in everyone having a share in taking care of everyone else -- just like when other people's kids go off to fight your wars, put out your fires, pave your streets.
As for turning it into welfare, I guess you weren't paying attention. The president wanted to institute big benefit cuts for anyone earning over $20,000 -- that's right, $20,000 -- thereby transforming the program into one geared toward the lowest income earners and alienating 'higher' earners who will rightly feel that they're being cheated to benefit poor "freeloaders" -- never mind that those "freeloaders" will have paid into the system. Programs for the poor are ALWAYS the first to get slashed, thanks to greedy selfish pricks like you folks.
At the same time, the funds diverted to the private accounts will drain the fund dry so that the system won't be able to support even those neediest. It's called starving the beast.
Someone used the phrase "utopian bubble" to describe my thinking.
You want to hand over the retirement funds of millions to crooked brokerage firms -- in the era of Enron, Arthur Andersen, etc. -- with rosy promises of fantastic stock market performances ad infinitum and I'M the utopian?
I just want everyone in the country to have a fair shake, not just the rich and powerful. You guys need to check some more facts and stop being so greedy and selfish.
- mercury
Anonymous is revising history. Sean refuses to to answers questions that prove him wrong. Typical Republicans. I offer honesty, truth and facts to the debate.
As far as the assersion that I argued with both liberals and conservatives is false. I had a discussion with someone who calls themself 'original liberal'. But who has posted nothing that would point to his liberalness that I've read. I argue with Rerpublicans not conservartives. Because Republicans are not conservative they just blindly follow the Republican platform and only claim to disagree with them on certain issues but still look up to the worst president ever. I also will argue with democrats who are wrong. I look for thr truth, honesty, and facts. This is all anyone should look for. But it doesn't matter to me because I know the republican game and that is to discredit the messenger when he beats you with the truth. If you want to try and discredit me with other like minded individuals here, they will see through it because they are smarter than that and you Republicans.
I love it when I get insulted by Republicans. Keep parrotting the right wing echo chamber. That way you never have to actually ever learn a thing.
And Sean these are you assertions not mine. I shouldn't have to answer my own questions about your distorted logic. You made the statements now back them up with the evidence that I told you would prove your point. That evidence doesn't exist because I've already seen it. But go find it, it will do you some good. See when you listen to what others say & repeat without properly vetting the information and don't research yourself, you don't ask the questions that need to be asked that would verify said statements.
But everytimne you speak you dig yourself a deeper hole. That's what happens when you debate with someone who has more knowledge.
"Most companies that are outsourcing their labor are doing so to stay competitive, many of these companies found that they were overpaying IT positions and phone center personnel (I know because I use to work as one during college back in the .com era). To stay competitive companies need to keep their costs down on goods and services to remain viable investments for their share holders. As much as you hate it companies are in businesses to make money and outsourcing keeps them viable, through lowering overhead."
I know why companies are in business. I explained this to you previously. But what's more important, the corporations or America and it's citizens? My views on taxes explain this explicitly. This is why I said that we need fair trade agreements that are actually fair and benefit the american worker.
But beside all that your statements are the gift that keep giving. Everytime you speak you show your ignorance of basic economics. Those same companies that are outsourcing to stay competive also paid the fair market value for it and phone center personel. The lack of supply of these workers dictated that these workers be paid higher salaries. The corporations had a choice(something that all conservatives who preach personal responsibility could understand), they pay what the market demanded these workers be paid and stay competitive or they fall behind to their competition. So there was no overpaying of anyone. That's capitalism, that's economics.
The only ones being overpaid are ceo's. Warren Buffet expalins this in great detail. There is collusion on the parts of corporate boards and ceo's in setting the pay of ceo's. Each ceo sits on the others board and sets ceo's pay. Ceo's pay is not being set by the market or the laws of supply and demand. This is not capitalism. The outrageous pay also isn't included in the financial statements of these corrupt companies. Not all coporations use this practice though. But a majority do cook the books in this fashion to stay competitive. Is this the compettition that you believe in Sean?
Now they want to reap the benefits of doing business in america and insure that trade agreements are unfair to americans while the majority suffer. That's unpatriotic and unamerican.
Please pick up a book Sean. Perhaps a class in economics. Or read "Wealth of Nations".
One more thing Nolo poses a qustions that all the 12.4% crowd need to answer: "how many of you folks actually believe that employers would actually pay their half of the payroll tax to employees as wages if they weren't required to pay it towards social security?"
Bitches!!!!!!!HAAAAHAAAHAAAAA!!!!
I love how these Republicans offer no proof but rely solely on what the echo chamber told them without impugnity. Then when you offer the proof that discredits these claims they can't believe that the echo chamber would lie to them. It's more of a mental problem on thier part of not being able to admit that they don't think for themselves. They are the type of people that fall for the nigerian scam. Look at what advertises on right wing radio: buy gold, hair regrowing products, penis enlargement products, etc. They cater to the propagandized, the easily manipulated. Who will answer the question that made the 12.4% claim?
Just so everyone knows, these Republicans are here to court the youth vote. They surely don't come here to learn, dicuss, or be with like-minded individuals. Republicans believe that they can capitalize on the unsubstaniated belief that youth will become repubs because of the ss debate. So if anyone is reading this and hear to learn or to discuss these issues or be with like minded individuals then please join in the bashing. It's the only way to dissuade them from continuing to come here.
Sounds like a desparate cry for help!!!!
Tell you what erik, I'll post the information you want on how companies afford the payroll tax before I post again. One more item, before I get back to work, just because there are people here that disagree with your assessment of Social Security does not mean they're Republicans nor does that prove we're here to steal voters for the right-wing. You'd find yourself eating crow if you knew some of my stances on social issues compared to real Republicans. So put away your rubber stamp, the name calling is getting out of control.
I just want to know which anon poster is mark harris.
Erik-
you're incredible. You've been hit with source after source, fact after fact, and yet you refuse to even accept any of them. Meanwhile, all you've thrown at us are your own personal allegations, without using a single source to back them up. The burden of proof is now on you, and you don't have any.
All you're left with is the typical American liberal arguments of "they're just corporate shills! they're morons! it's a conspiracy! they're all against me! they're just trying to steal your vote!"
It's incredibly immature. I don't know how old you are, but if this is how liberals nowadays act, I can see that I'm never going to be returning to supporting the liberal left- on anything. If there's one thing that makes me angry, it's disingenuous partisan immaturity. And you epitomize that. Between you and "Actual Liberal," this board has done an excellent thing- it has shown the public just exactly what the modern left has been reduced to- attacks and political shills.
And one more thing:
Just so everyone knows, these Republicans are here to court the youth vote.
WE ARE the youth vote, guy. And 60% of us support personal accounts. What does that say? Oh, don't even answer, I know what you'll say: "60% of youth America has been taken over by THE CORPORATIONS! They're all against me! It's all a conspiracy against ERIK!!!"
......grow up.
I cannot believe some of the discussion against unions here. So, I can assume the anti-union crowd here doesn't like their vacation time, 40 hour work week, or work safety rules? what the hell is wrong with some of you people? and i'm sorry but el salvadorians do not need slave labor jobs we keep sending their way via outsourcing and free trade. fair trade, that's another story. The people of El Salvador are poor because of American corporations. Props to Rock the Vote for supporting Union Labor. At least we know the workers that made the shirts were able to take their kids to the doctor because they have access to health insurance. Come on people.
Lindsey, you have managed to make the most ignorant comment that I think I have seen on this post to date. You deserve a crown or trophy for the following gem:
"The people of El Salvador are poor because of American corporations."
PLEASE!! Explain this logic. I can't wait to hear how American corporations are responsible for the people of El Salvador being poor.
It couldn't be the gov't of El Salvador that is responsible for the poverty of its people. No. It's American Corporations.
I understand where you're coming from though. You and Erik think everthing is the fault of American Corporations. It's American Corporations fault that we are in Iraq. It's American Coporations fault that the people of El Salvador are poor. It's American Corporations fault that poeple don't have health insurance. It's American Corporations fault that people can't save for their retirement.
GIVE ME A BREAK AND GROW UP. One day you will see the real world in perspective when you work for a real corporation and your family lives off the pay that the big corporation is genorous enough to pay you for your skills.
Tell me, Lindsey. What would the El Salvador people been doing without those jobs that American Corporations brought over to El Salvador? Have you ever spoke to someone in El Salvador that works for an American Company? What if that person wants to keep their job that you think they shouldn't be doing? What job would they have otherwise? Last I heard, El Salvador isn't exactly a booming job market. It may not be the best job compared to what we have in America, but who are you to say the job isn't better than their alternative.
Sean if you have a liberal stance on social issues then why do allow yourself to be a whore for hate and fear mongers on the religious right?
Anony is a typical Republican. He accuses others of what he himself does. This is how Republicans distort the debate so no one can find the truth or want to listen. While I source my material from govenrment reports, govt studies, and govt websites that are non-partisan and currently in the control of Republicans, Anony(still can't come up with a name for your ignorance) gets sources from far right wing publications and pushes them of as sources. If anyone wants to see for themselves go back and read the posts and judge for yourself. You'll see who has the sources and who is lying. That would be you that's lying anony.
You can claim to be whatever you want. I've seen wild claims about people in various posts. I do know, because I read papers from all over the country, that this is a republican strategy and obviously the parrotting of right wing talking points are in effect here. I don't know you from a fucking whole in the wall and your ignorance either leads one to beleive that you have been propagandized by the echo or a right wing repub. I, on the other hand, believe in honesty, the truth and facts. All of which you don't possess. I don't need SS because i invest my money and time wisely. It will and should be their when I retire. Just a little icing on the cake for me. But you seem to really be betting on privitization which means you aren't spending your time or money wisely. I guess you're just a another hypocritical Republcian who tells others about persoanl responsibility but doesn't pratice it themselves. Luckily people like me will make sure that your welfare queen ass doesn't have to eat dog food in retiremnt. What makes you think that if you can't properly manage your money now that you will be able manage ss privatization?
By the way what is your source for the 60% and don't tell me Fox News poll? The abc/washington post poll says 55% percent are opposed to Bush plan for ss. In the the 18-29 40% aprrove and 49% oppose. In the 30-39 44% approve and 50% oppose. So what's your source? On top of that every poll conducted shows a steady decline for Bush's SS plan.
One more thing I guess Nolo and me finally convinced 12.4% crowd that they are wrong. Any takers on the helping out a Nigerian friend? Facts are a republcians worst nightmare.
Ignorant American don't use my name in something that I never said. You are a true dittohead. The echo chamber uses this same tactic. Because I critisize corporations, I blame them for the problems in the world? Dont use blanket statements to sum up my beliefs. But what would I expect from someone with ignorant in their name.
Here is a poll for you, Erik. It's done by Zogby.
"Most likely voters continue to support President Bush's proposal to let younger workers invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes through personal accounts, a new survey finds.
The poll by independent pollster John Zogby for the Cato Institute, which is being released today, found that when voters understood the benefits of personal investment accounts, including a better financial rate of return than the current system, the Bush plan was supported by 52 percent of Americans and opposed by 40 percent.
"The thing that is compelling in this poll is that this is the response you get when you use a positive approach on Social Security reform," Mr. Zogby said. "If you use the 'Chicken Little, sky-is-falling' approach, then voters understand that something has to be done, but don't see the connection between personal accounts and fundamental reform of Social Security."
"There are a large number of voters, especially those under 50, who don't think they are getting the best possible deal from Social Security," he said.
As in past surveys on the president's personal-accounts proposal, strongest support comes from younger voters under age 30, who embrace the idea by a margin of 66 percent to 23 percent.
Support declines somewhat among voters between 30 and 50, with 58 percent in favor versus 37 percent who oppose it.
Voters over 65 oppose personal accounts 52 percent to 40 percent and those over 70 oppose them by 55 percent to 38 percent.
The survey also contained a warning for the Democrats about how their opposition to any reform of the Social Security system is playing with the electorate.
"By an overwhelming 70-22 percent margin, voters believe that opponents of President Bush's proposals for Social Security reform have an obligation to put out their own plan for reforming the program," including 55 percent of Democratic voters, Mr. Zogby said in a report of his findings.
Among supporters, the most popular reason for supporting private accounts was, "It's my money; I should control it," Mr. Zogby said. "This was true for every group except African-Americans, who chose inheritability as their biggest reason for supporting accounts."
The poll's results suggested that Mr. Bush's proposal would be much more popular if he focused "on the points in this poll," Mr. Zogby said in an interview.
"Nobody can understand or relate to the system's insolvency in 2043. But it wins a majority when the issue is raised as a matter of choice and as a positive opportunity," he said. "If it's pitted as just Social Security reform because it is becoming insolvent, that's not enough."
Among the poll's other findings:
•Support was strongest (57 percent to 36 percent) in the "red states" that Mr. Bush carried in his 2004 re-election. Support split more evenly (48 percent to 44 percent) in the Democratic "blue states" that Sen. John Kerry won.
•Voters by 62 percent to 30 percent remained deeply skeptical about Social Security's promise to pay future benefits. Skepticism was highest among younger voters, with more than 70 percent saying they doubted that the system would be able to pay their benefits when they reached retirement age.
The poll of 1,006 likely voters was conducted May 23-25 and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points."
It's all in the framing RA.
Here's a great post about the mind of republicans:
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2005/06/this-from-mr-gilliard.html
It’s not true that the Conservatives I know don’t give a damn so much as they are terrified that they were wrong.
Deeply, primally terrified. Their whole psychological infrastructure is cobbled together out of half-baked conservative bumper-sticker ideology, gun lust, socially illiterate hatred of “welfare cheats” and other largely fictional or apocryphal lazy people (read: niggers and other swarthy folk) who want to leech off of them while they work harder and harder for less and less. Despite a lot of bluster about Freedom and Individuality they are, at heart, happiest when they are conforming to the wishes of the Strong Man; when they know exactly their place in the hierarchy.
Security and Enforced Orderliness is their idea Heaven and Doubt is their Hell, which is why they swarm like mayflies towards simple-minded sloganeering instead of actual, y’know, thinking…and why many of them fall madly in love with Fundamentalism. It’s this anti-Faustian bargain where they get the perfect peace of mind that comes from absolute, swaggering certainty that they are completely right about every single thing. And thrown in at no extra charge, they get Paradise after they die, with the promise that they’ll get to see my sorry ass screaming in agony in a lake of fire on Basic Cable for all eternity.
But in exchange for all of this wonderfulness, they have to hand over their souls to truly evil men.
They must agree that they will never, ever, ever question Their Master’s Commands. To blindly obey and to never do the math and never read the fine print. In other words, to tear from their own body and slaughter of their own volition and with their own hands the one capacity that actually makes them fully human: their capacity for free and independent thought.
This is the ancient, unbridgeable and eternally hostile schism between their template for humanity and ours. This is, I believe, why sometimes we fundamentally cannot understand each other; because we are running two radically different and incompatible O/S's.
Out there, deep in the dark, -- they are told – are bearded madmen who worship a Death God that they cannot possibly understand who live just to kill them and their children for no rational reason. Not that there are not bad people in the world who really do need killin’, and real enemies that I want stopped, but they are sold this campfire escaped-lunatic scare-story version of the Ay-rab Terminator which, as it turns out, also happens to be the perfect outward projection of their own deeply perverse ideology.
And in closer, right next door – they are told – are the Evil Liberal Elite who live to sell their great nation out into polyglot slavery to a band of international appeasers, Socialists and faggots. Who are either too stupid to see the threat, or hate their country so much that they cheer on American failure and need to be protected from themselves.
Most of these people are not Nazis, but they are the perfect raw material for our own, homegrown American Rightwing Demagogues; obedient, stupid, bigoted and easily frightened.
And because everything – their very souls – rest on the foundation of the infallibility of Dear Leader, they’ll happily kill anyone in any numbers who might force them to face up to the fact that Dear Leader is a duplicitous, lying sleazebag who has played on their fear and ignorance and patriotism to turn them out like $2 crack whores.
Me? I’m wrong all the time. Make all kinds of mistakes and from time to time get overly attached to something that’s just plain dumb (Does listening to “Snoopy’s Christmas” back-to-back with “The New Shit” by Marilyn Manson at The Ride of the Valkyrie volume count?) And when I do, it’s hard to let go of it, but I do (mostly) and my mom taught me early on that when your wrong, you own up and say you’re sorry.
Period.
But I remember one woman I lived with once. A knockout red-head. Very bright. Thunder God sex. Hated Fundies but, as it turned out, for exactly the same reasons Conservative Evangelical Fudnamentalists hate Wahabi Muslims. See, she had problems. LOTS of problems, one of which was that she was congenitally unable to apologize.
Ever.
(insert sexy, flashback fadeout here)
She was always full of very pointed advice about how everyone else should live (Funny how 12 years of strict Freudian therapy, god knows how many 12-step programs and a bookshelf full of self-help manuals will do that to a person) but could not bring herself to admit when she had fucked up.
Ever.
Anyway, it’s a long, sad story, but the gist of it is that one evening she was being an utter bitch about something which she had clearly done wrong. I’d finally had enough, shrugged off my Easygoing Guy togs, strapped into my Full Metal Logician armor and went after her. Just verbally backed her right up into a corner and wouldn’t let up.
“Here’s what you said, and here’s what you did. You were wrong. Apologize.”
“But I…”
“Here’s what you said, and here’s what you did. You were wrong. Apologize.”
“I really think you are the problem here, and…”
“Here’s what you said, and here’s what you did. You were wrong. Apologize.”
“I don’t think this attitude is very…”
“Here’s what you said, and here’s what you did. You were wrong. Apologize.”
And then she lost it. Completely, utterly lost it. Started shrieking like she was being knifed.
“Fine! Fine! FUCK YOU! You want to Crucify me! You want my BLOOD! Fine! I’m sorry you cocksucker! There! You happy now!”
As I remember it, she threw a plate – one of those patterned, Pier One oversized things that you use under a centerpiece and that humans never actually eat off of – but it was many years ago and I am as susceptible to the Dynasty-ization of memory as anyone.
I do remember that she cried for an hour, went out, didn’t come back until the next day and never forgave me for it.
Built in to the Right Wing DNA is the same congenital defect, and since they will happily burn the world to the ground before they admit they might actually have been wrong about Bush, it falls to us to keep them backed into a corner as best we can, because once events out here in Realityland begin to pound through the perimeter denial defenses, what comes after ain’t gonna be pretty.
Not to scream blindly into the void for the impossible – Steve’s quite right about that – but to keep patiently repeating: “Here’s what you said, and here’s what you did. You were wrong. Apologize,” in every venue available.
The bad news is, until they wake the fuck up, these people are slaves, and there is no one so ferocious as a brainwashed thrall defending his owner.
The good news is, we are still 49% of the game; wake up and pick off a mere 100,000 and we can begin to turn a lot of thinks around. The more gooder news is that our O/S thrives best when saturated in pure, clean Reality, and theirs rust and rots and flies apart at the seams when the lies that insulate it are peeled away.
The sheer weight of simple things like time and gravity and causality itself are our natural and incorruptable allies. They are merciless, and recognize no Geneva Convention niceties when meting out justice to arrant fools who try to fuck with them.
Oh and the red-head?
She moved to Texas, married money and now thinks muggers and food-stamp recipients should be imprisoned for life or, mo’ better, executed. After all, she had to work hard her whole life, so why should these shiftless scumbags get any help.
Yeah, really.
What are you trying to do, Erik? Filibuster this entire discussion? Holy crap.
Anyway:
One more thing I guess Nolo and me finally convinced 12.4% crowd that they are wrong. Any takers on the helping out a Nigerian friend? Facts are a republcians worst nightmare.
Nolo and you did no such thing, pal. I pointed out from not one, not two, but THREE sources- two of them being very clearly NONPARTISAN- that Social Security is a 12.4% on a person's first $90,000 in income. Instead of trying to prove otherwise through the use of legitimate sources, you chose to engage in name-calling and ignoring the sources that were mentioned. Much like most liberals nowadays do, you reacted with emotion instead of logic.
But I don't blame you for that. It's natural. Studies have shown that liberals are "Feelers" while conservatives are "Thinkers." I'd cite the sources and post the whole study, but you'd ignore it much like you ignore every other fact that is presented.
To my pal up there who insists that if employers didn't pay their 6.2%, that it wouldn't go to the employer: that's moot. Employers factor it into salaries, because they don't want to have to use other expenses to cover the tremendous cost of 6.2% on every employee's salary. Thus, the employer pays it. If that tax didn't exist, would every employee have more money? Very likely- but even if the employers didn't pay them more, there still would be more hiring, and likely a higher pay rate. It's basic economics.
On to Lindsey Walker, the same girl who insisted that the military is a "poverty draft" in another thread:
I'm not entirely anti-union, but unions ARE part of the reason why American jobs continue to get sent overseas. Unions demand so much of employers and businesses in America, that it simply is no longer profitable to waste so much money on American employees. So what do employers do? They take advantage of all of these ridiculous free trade agreements that Mr. Bill Clinton and Bush 41 passed in the 1990s, and they go hire workers abroad instead, who come cheaper- without unions.
Free trade AND Unions are to blame for America's employment problems. Go ahead Lindsey, try to run a big business in America, and try to see how difficult it is to give unions everything they demand. They demand so much that businesses default on pension plans- like United did a few weeks ago- and go into bankruptcy, like GM is now considering. Unions are a good thing to have around, to protect worker rights- but they have gone entirely overboard, demanding way too much of the American employer.
This is why I insist that both the right and the left are wrong on economics and ending unemployment. The left's manic obsession with taxation and union rights is making hiring Americans a very unattractive option for businesses. The right's manic obsession with free trade is offering businesses a way to rape other nations for their own benefit, instead of hiring Americans. BOTH sides have it entirely wrong.
Explain where you disagree with the framing, Erik.
Nice try
That was about a worthless post from some misguided friend of Erik
Erik, here is the link to the Zogby poll so you can read the questions. Let me know how you thought the questions were unfairly framed.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/zogbycrosstabs.pdf
If you are trying to say that Zogby is a republican hack, then you have lost your mind. He was the democrats little poster child during the 2004 election.
"Lindsey, you have managed to make the most ignorant comment that I think I have seen on this post to date."
You clearly spend a lot of time on this board since you can, from your vast canvassing of the board, ascertain that the articulate statement upon which you are commenting is the most ignorant comment. I might suggest that your nationalist blinders are evidence of a greater ignorance.
"Responsible American" is apparently not responsible enough to use a real name. Perhaps the anonymity of the e-world allows you to get a hard-on for your glorious interpretation of the noble american corporations' task of bringing work and happiness to Latin America.
"PLEASE!! Explain this logic. I can't wait to hear how American corporations are responsible for the people of El Salvador being poor." T
This might have something to do with corporation-backed programs such as NAFTA and CAFTA, in which Latin American leaders cooperate with the US to destablize the internal economies of places such as El Salvador, making it ripe for american corporations to enter, effectively raping those nations.
"GIVE ME A BREAK AND GROW UP. One day you will see the real world in perspective when you work for a real corporation and your family lives off the pay that the big corporation is genorous enough to pay you for your skills."
I find comments along the line of seeing "the real world" particularly amusing when viewed from the context of an online message board. Does someone such as yourself who thrives off of attacking posters anonymously have a greater understanding of the real world? Have you ever been to Latin America? It isn't in the best interests of El Salvadoran workers to be making shit wages and it isn't in the best interests of American workers that US companies are living fat off the toil of El Salvadoran workers. The only people who truly benefit are those corporations.
"Tell me, Lindsey. What would the El Salvador people been doing without those jobs that American Corporations brought over to El Salvador?"
They would probably spend at least three hours of their day on the rockthevote site complaining about other posters. Of course that's not what they'd be doing: they'd be living autonomously.
First of all "Anthony", the reason for the name was to make a point. My real name is Ryan if it makes a difference to you. Yeah, I do like to read this blog and see what my fellow youth think of issues. If you are criticizing my involvment in the discussion, then so be it.
A few things to address in your post.
["Responsible American" is apparently not responsible enough to use a real name. Perhaps the anonymity of the e-world allows you to get a hard-on for your glorious interpretation of the noble american corporations' task of bringing work and happiness to Latin America.]
I don't think I made the case that corporations are bringing happiness to any country. I don't believe that is the responsiblity of American Corporations. What you are missing is that the environment for business in a country is set by its government. If an American Company chooses to participate in a foreign countries business environment, they do so assuming many risks, mostly governmental instability.
I particularly like this comment:
[This might have something to do with corporation-backed programs such as NAFTA and CAFTA, in which Latin American leaders cooperate with the US to destablize the internal economies of places such as El Salvador, making it ripe for american corporations to enter, effectively raping those nations.]
Nice try, but the internal economies of places like El Salvador were pretty unstable before any program such as NAFTA or CAFTA. You might want to try again.
[Does someone such as yourself who thrives off of attacking posters anonymously have a greater understanding of the real world? Have you ever been to Latin America? It isn't in the best interests of El Salvadoran workers to be making shit wages and it isn't in the best interests of American workers that US companies are living fat off the toil of El Salvadoran workers. The only people who truly benefit are those corporations.]
It may seem like an attack, but it is really passion. I can't stand libs putting the problems of the world on the lap of American Corporations. Without American Corporations, there wouldn't be an America. I work for a Worldwide corporation and make a comfortable living for my family by doing so. I don't know your field of expertise, but I imagine it must be some government job.
You or Lindsey didn't answer my question. Have you ever talked to anyone from El Salvador? Have you been to El Salvador? What would that person be doing without that American Corporation job? Probably shoveling shit, but that is liberal compassion. You always know better.
"GIVE ME A BREAK AND GROW UP. One day you will see the real world in perspective when you work for a real corporation and your family lives off the pay that the big corporation is genorous enough to pay you for your skills."
First off, Mr Old White guy, I will never work for a real corporation. I'm a product of small business owners, and prefer the not for profit world. I help people.
"Without American Corporations, there wouldn't be an America."
I would have to argue that without American workers there wouldn't be an America. The people are the power, not the corporations.
Whatever, typical liberal symantics. I'm 28, by the way. Who do you think starts American Corporations, small business owners. My family owns a small business communications company run by my father and brother. Recently, they have been franchising out. Who knows, they may become a large corporation before you know it. I guess that means they will become evil at some point.
Oh yeah, by helping people, do you mean finding jobs for people who are unemployed?
Damn evil corporations that provide jobs for people to live a decent life.
erik,
First before I respond allow me to post a link from accountants that explain that payroll taxes are to be considered part of any business' expenses before a profit can be made:
How to Prepare a Budget
an excerpt:
"The business expenses must be estimated as well. Expenses may include, among other things, costs for inventory, if relevant, rent, insurance, payroll costs and the related taxes, maintenance, travel, depreciation and overhead."
Now there is a link for you to read, and I have plenty of business books from college and other sources that explain further what I've told you, but I'm more interested in hearing what you found out if you in fact went and asked a successful businessman or woman about how they pay the payroll tax.
Now onto your question:
"Sean if you have a liberal stance on social issues then why do allow yourself to be a whore for hate and fear mongers on the religious right?"
I love how you deal in black in white judgments... isn't that a trait liberals accuse Republicans of having? Seeing things in good or bad, right and wrong, black and white with no grey or middle ground? So I can either be an evil republican or a liberal whore in your mind simply because I don't subscribe to your illogical viewpoint. Nice way to view people in life.
Why do you consider the right to be filled with hate and fear mongers? How can the right fit that description when this very blog, which is run by Rock The Vote, has been party to drumming up the fear of an unsubstantiated claim that the draft was going to return if we elected W to office for another term just last year? How can you claim that the right is filling our society with fear when every election year all we hear from Democrats is the Republicans want to take Social Security away from old folks? Isn't that fear mongering? Again, this same blog we're posting on has done the same thing, even in the face of the facts that the President has stated time and again that no one who was promised Social Security would be left without it.
No erik, the right wing is not the ones who are the party of fear mongering, that unfortunate title has been passed to the liberals in congress. From making ridiculous claims about nominees to the social security debate and Gitmo, the Democrats have become the masters of spreading fear across this nation, and they have done so for one selfish reason: To retain and gain back the power they perceive as having been stolen from them.
Democrats have not put forth one option or plan to fix any of their perceived problems. With Gitmo they complain and demand it be closed but when asked what they would do with the prisoners they have no plan. With Social Security they proclaim everything is fine, but when presented with the stats and asked how they would make the plan solvent to be able to pay the current IOUs they fall silent. On judicial nominees they complain that the judges are too 'extreme' with no explanation or definition to their claims, only to label these men and women as far right wingers. So far the last 5 years have shown democrats (a party I once supported) to be a party without a voice, message or positive outlook for America and that is why they are now in the minority.
Erik, you and the rest of your buddies better wake up, because in 2008 if the Republicans nominate someone who isn't as religious as Bush and has a plan for America that is truly fiscally conservative you can expect another 4 years of 'right-wing hate and fear mongering'.
In case anyone is looking, most textile manfacturing and finishing is not done in the U.S. anymore, so it would be next to impossible to get teeshirts made in the USA.
Americans for Prosperity take their name from a commitment to limiting the power of government to tax, thus leaving more money in the hands of individuals and families.
It is a matter of historical record that economies flourish, and jobs multiply, in periods of low marginal taxation. The leftist notion that high taxes to pay for a smorgasbord of social safety net programs is the way to prosperity is without any proof.
Coercive collectivism of whatever stripe does not promote freedom, human dignity, or prosperity and is not compassionate or humane because, at the core, it depends on the threat of force. This quiet, continuing violence is just as reprehensible as the violence of war and crime, and is all the more sinister because leftists continue to promote it, refusing to name it for what it is, employing all kinds of sophistry and convoluted logic to defend it.
Post a Comment
<< Home