Hillary at it again... [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Parkbandit

10-09-2007, 05:01 PM

Ok.. so the 5k for every kid plan won't work... she's already realized how dumb she was to say it.. so now, her new plan is: (Sorry for the biased source.. but it was the first one to pop up)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/politics/09cnd-hillary.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

WEBSTER CITY, Iowa, Oct. 9 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York unveiled the second biggest domestic policy idea of her Democratic presidential campaign today, proposing to spend $20 billion to $25 billion a year to create 401(k)-style retirement accounts for all Americans and provide federal matching money of up to $1,000 to middle-income people.

Under the plan, the government would give a dollar-to-dollar match for the first $1,000 saved by Americans who earn up to $60,000 annually. For those who earn $60,000 to $100,000, the government would provide a 50 percent match, or $500 for the first $1,000 saved.

Mrs. Clinton said she would pay for the program by freezing the estate tax at its 2009 level of $7 million per couple. A campaign analysis of the plan said that the freeze would affect about 10,000 of “the wealthiest estates” in the United States and provide a new retirement savings systems for an estimated tens of millions of families.

While many Democrats would embrace an estate tax freeze, many Republicans and antitax stalwarts would oppose it, and Democrats would probably have a hard time passing such legislation in the United States Senate, where the party’s majority is currently razor-thin.

_________________________

Like her last failed plan.. this one is also for the dumb and poor to blindly go "OOOOH!!! I R RICH!"

TheSmooth1

10-09-2007, 05:09 PM

Why hasn't she been assassinated yet?

Kembal

10-09-2007, 05:29 PM

Uh, this is essentially the privatized Social Security plan that Bush was pushing in 2005, but Clinton made it an additional plan instead of replacing Social Security.

She just triangulated and smashed the Republican Party flat on this. And the identified funding source is interesting...remember, the estate tax rollback sunsets in 2010 (or 2011?), bringing it back down to a million. This permanently freezes it at 7 million, and uh, people in that wealth range have strategies to ensure the actual wealth of the estate isn't used to pay the tax.

If she gets elected, and the Senate moves more firmly into Democratic control as is expected, this is going to pass.

Parkbandit

10-09-2007, 05:34 PM

Kembal

10-09-2007, 05:56 PM

What's the difference? The match? That's a puny match compared to employer-sponsored 401k plans. Stop acting like it's going to destroy capitalism as we know it. $25 billion comes nowhere close to "redistributing wealth in this country."

Again, I hate to break it to you guys, but $20 to $25 billion is a drop in the federal budget.

Kembal

10-09-2007, 06:04 PM

Thinking about it....there is a problem with this proposal, but not one that has anything to do with fiscal ideology. (I suspect Gan will have caught it once he reads the post though)

Essentially, there's a moral hazard embedded in the proposal as laid out now. Once this is out there, what's to stop companies from dumping their 401k plans, forcing their employees to go into this government plan? You see it now with the pension bailouts.

Maybe there's a nuance I'm missing without having read the campaign document, but that's something that would concern me about this proposal.

Parkbandit

10-09-2007, 06:51 PM

Hulkein

10-09-2007, 07:10 PM

I see it as just another vehicle to redistribute wealth in this country. A small one mind you (like Kembal said.. 25 billion really isn't all that much) but it still penalizes the rich to give to the "poor".

Every 'plan' I hear out of Hillary's mouth has the same motive behind it.

I'm obviously not a socialist. That being said, every piece of legislation that has some redistributive quality isn't horrible. I think it'd be beneficial in the long-term to implement a plan like this. Then again I'm also for privatized social security.

Kembal

10-09-2007, 07:29 PM

Seriously, PB, wealth redistribution as proposed in this plan won't have any deleterious effects. The targeted group (7 million+ in estate wealth) already employs financial planners and makes sure to set up life insurance plans with multi-million dollar payouts upon death to trusts whose sole purpose will be to pay off the estate tax levied against their estate, or finds some other way to make sure the actual wealth of the estate is not affected by the tax. (part of the reason I supported the rollback of the estate tax was because it was possible for someone who didn't employ a financial planner to end up with a million in assets, and their family got slammed by the tax upon their death. 7 million or more, not so much)

The actual redistribution would be from corporate entities dealing in insurance. And they hedge against this by investing the premiums they get. In economic terms, there isn't very much deadweight loss here, if any.

Warriorbird

10-09-2007, 08:07 PM

Bush's plan was actually nationalism, Parkbandit...and a huge payoff to folks who weren't the individuals. Me, I think we just ought to flat out end social security.

Gan

10-09-2007, 08:45 PM

I need to see more detail of her plan. At first flush it just sounds like another shell game from Hillary.

Is this matching for a 401k account that the tax payer is in control of? Or is it through a government account?

So the max is 1k? Thats like a one time tax refund/check from the government. Is it something thats held in escrow until the taxpayer reaches a certain age? Who earns the interest on the matching funds? Where is that allocated to?

Something just doesnt smell right.

TheEschaton

10-09-2007, 09:17 PM

Parkbandit

10-09-2007, 11:21 PM

I seriously can't believe you're objecting to freezing the estate tax at its highest levels ever, and using the tax from estate taxes ABOVE SEVEN MILLION to fund this program.

The only people this thing affects are the Hilton sisters. And the Waltons. And the Gates. And Soros. And Buffet.

I mean, come on.

It's just another scheme by Hillary, the self proclaimed Progressive, to take from the rich and give to the poor. Redistribution of Wealth is Step #1 in the Socialist Platform.. is it not? So far, that is all I am hearing from Hillary.

TheEschaton

10-09-2007, 11:31 PM

You call taxing people once on 7 million dollar inheritences "Redistribution of wealth"?

Wow, you don't want to read my globalization paper. That's real redistribution of wealth.

-TheE-

Parkbandit

10-09-2007, 11:51 PM

You call taxing people once on 7 million dollar inheritences "Redistribution of wealth"?

Wow, you don't want to read my globalization paper. That's real redistribution of wealth.

-TheE-

You are correct.. I wouldn't want to waste my time in the fiction section by reading anything political from you.

I've already agreed that this is a minor program.. but just one of many in her arsenal to bring about the socialist changes she wants. Socialized Medicine, $5000k for each newborn child, $1000 matching 401K fund, etc... Do you not see a pattern forming here? Each one of these programs will be funded by the rich and benefiting the so called poor.

She's a fucking wackjob who will do or say anything to get a vote. Clinton Inc. has the Democratic nomination already wrapped up.. and probably the '08 election. All the dumb and poor fools of this country flock around her like she's Robin Hood.

TheEschaton

10-10-2007, 12:01 AM

Actually, the premise of my paper is pretty simple. Every capitalist country in the world has discovered that unregulated, unfettered capitalism doesn't work, so they've implemented consumer and worker protections.

However, with globalization, there is no individual government that can govern legal rights around the world, so there is a need to have a strong world organization (maybe a new, updated WTO) which can enforce not economic policies, but social, legal rights of workers and consumers. And, of course, if companies are freely allowed to move wherever they want....workers should be allowed to do the same.

My professor thinks it's a rather good paper topic. I'll tell you when I publish it.

-TheE-

Bobmuhthol

10-10-2007, 12:03 AM

<<Clinton Inc. has the Democratic nomination already wrapped up.. and probably the '08 election.>>

Have you actually looked at the numbers at any point ever?

Drew

10-10-2007, 12:40 AM

You call taxing people once on 7 million dollar inheritences "Redistribution of wealth"?

Wow, you don't want to read my globalization paper. That's real redistribution of wealth.

-TheE-

Do you know how much a lot of family owned businesses are worth? If you said over 7 million you are correct. How is it fair to have the government take your farm/restaurant/whatever that you worked hard to create? It's not, damn I'm getting so angry just thinking about this, I'll stop now.

The only people this thing affects are the Hilton sisters. And the Waltons. And the Gates. And Soros. And Buffet.

No, you've named billionaires (except for the Hiltons), these are not the people this would affect by and large. If you capped it at 800 million, sure it would. But 7 million is well in the range of the asset value of tons of family owned businesses. I seriously hate you retards, I mean I literally can't stand you people sometimes. Working hard to advance the plot of your descendants is the oldest tradition in the book. We've been doing it for thousands of years. The immorality of it is staggering, I know I'm being dramatic but it bothers me a ton. The thought that taking 50% of what someone has made by the sweat of their brow simply because they were good at it, it's ridiculous.

AestheticDeath

10-10-2007, 12:59 AM

Working hard to advance the plot of your descendants is the oldest tradition in the book. We've been doing it for thousands of years. The immorality of it is staggering, I know I'm being dramatic but it bothers me a ton. The thought that taking 50% of what someone has made by the sweat of their brow simply because they were good at it, it's ridiculous.

I agree..

I don't like taking from the rich to give to the poor.

Gan

10-10-2007, 01:42 AM

Anytime you penalize success in order to reward those who would rather to live on handouts is just enabeling laziness and the welfare state.

Pretty soon you will drive out those who are motivated by success and who will foot the bill then?

Again, considering the wealth of the law makers who choose to support this bill, how many fall in to the 7m value estate? How many will seek tax shelters and other loopholes to protect their hard earned wealth that their decendants are to inherit?

Not only is it unCapitalistic, its unAmerican, unFair, and unRealistic.

Warriorbird

10-10-2007, 01:59 AM

So...how about all the penalties assessed most rich folks to pay for a war only some of the rich folks are profiting from?

Hmm...

Massive spending actually works against the ideals of cutting taxes.

Gan

10-10-2007, 02:28 AM

So...how about all the penalties assessed most rich folks to pay for a war only some of the rich folks are profiting from?
Please leave the tin-foil hat rhetoric out of the discussion. You're sounding Backlashian.

Massive spending actually works against the ideals of cutting taxes.
Without a doubt it is counter productive. No arguments there.

Warriorbird

10-10-2007, 09:05 AM

Tin foil hat?

Everybody in America is paying taxes for the Iraq War.

Kembal

10-10-2007, 09:58 AM

Do you know how much a lot of family owned businesses are worth? If you said over 7 million you are correct. How is it fair to have the government take your farm/restaurant/whatever that you worked hard to create? It's not, damn I'm getting so angry just thinking about this, I'll stop now.

That's correct. My family has such a business. We did our financial planning out, and we've got life insurance policies set up specifically to provide me with the funds necessary to pay the estate tax when the time comes. (hopefully a very very long time from now) It's very hard for me to believe that a family-owned business in that asset value range wouldn't have its owners employing financial planners, just like we did.

And honestly, if you can get more Americans to save money, the long-term economic health of the country is better off. So it pays off in the long run. It's a small amount of wealth redistribution, but the dividends from it are much larger.

Parkbandit

10-10-2007, 10:12 AM

That's correct. My family has such a business. We did our financial planning out, and we've got life insurance policies set up specifically to provide me with the funds necessary to pay the estate tax when the time comes. (hopefully a very very long time from now) It's very hard for me to believe that a family-owned business in that asset value range wouldn't have its owners employing financial planners, just like we did.

And honestly, if you can get more Americans to save money, the long-term economic health of the country is better off. So it pays off in the long run. It's a small amount of wealth redistribution, but the dividends from it are much larger.

How is me giving some lazy schlep $1,000 going to make America better off? If that was the case.. why shouldn't I just run around in one of the apartment complexes I am contracting out of and just throw money at the HUD people driving around in their Lexus, Hummers, etc...

When you reward laziness.. it will only encourage more laziness.

Clove

10-10-2007, 10:16 AM

...Once this is out there, what's to stop companies from dumping their 401k plans, forcing their employees to go into this government plan?

I was wondering the same thing.

Also, correct me if I misunderstood, but the plan doesn't exactly "match". As I understand it, a tax credit goes directly to your 401k which in many cases (though not all) would simply amount to refund of taxes already paid to your retirement fund. Not like my employer adding to my own contributions so much as the Feds giving me permission to allocate taxes to my retirement instead, and then recovering the tax revenue from estates.

TheEschaton

10-10-2007, 10:21 AM

Solkern

10-10-2007, 10:22 AM

Funny part is, she might atually become our president!

Hulkein

10-10-2007, 10:23 AM

Do you know how much a lot of family owned businesses are worth? If you said over 7 million you are correct. How is it fair to have the government take your farm/restaurant/whatever that you worked hard to create? It's not, damn I'm getting so angry just thinking about this, I'll stop now.

No, you've named billionaires (except for the Hiltons), these are not the people this would affect by and large. If you capped it at 800 million, sure it would. But 7 million is well in the range of the asset value of tons of family owned businesses. I seriously hate you retards, I mean I literally can't stand you people sometimes. Working hard to advance the plot of your descendants is the oldest tradition in the book. We've been doing it for thousands of years. The immorality of it is staggering, I know I'm being dramatic but it bothers me a ton. The thought that taking 50% of what someone has made by the sweat of their brow simply because they were good at it, it's ridiculous.

Charging an estate tax is a little different than taxing a hard working person for being successful. It's taxing the children who, most of the time, have done nothing to earn the money but make it out the womb.

Parkbandit

10-10-2007, 10:26 AM

Errrr, it said that it affects 10,000 households out of what, 330 million people?

Are all family businesses encapsulated in that 10,000? That's amazing!

As for Gan's assessment that it's unCapitalist, I agree. I happen to think Capitalism is immoral, and we shouldn't be promoting it, but reigning it in. If that's unAmerican to reign in Capitalism, then I think we should reassess what being American is. I don't remember learning in Civics that the right to inherit 7 million from daddy is a right.

-TheE-

Tell me about your perfect world TheE.. and I'll point to all it's faults.

Show me a better system out there.. that is effective on a large country like the US. I'll once again, show you the many problems.

Socialism is a fantastic theory.. people living in harmony with everyone working hard and putting all the money into one pot.. and dividing it all up among everyone. I would LOVE to work in that type of society.. if I thought for a second it would work. It's simply never going to happen like you write about in your fiction paper.. it's not in human nature. Greed and laziness tears it apart.

This is where you have to have a solid foot in reality.. a solid foot you are obviously missing.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-10-2007, 10:34 AM

I don't remember learning in Civics that the right to inherit 7 million from daddy is a right.

-TheE-

WTF? You mean a person (Daddy) can't give their (hard, easy, whatever) earned money to someone they want too? Yet you think its a right of the poor to get part of Daddy's money, and he doesn't have a say in it?

What color is the sky in your world?

Tsa`ah

10-10-2007, 10:39 AM

At this point it's getting to be nothing more than petty political bias.

Had any "conservative" offered this up, some of you would on it like it was the holy grail of financial legislation.

It seems the more conservative a person becomes the more they believe that everyone earning an income below their own is "lazy" and seeking a handout.

How about we actually address financial disparity and insure the possibility that of anyone bellying up to bar get a fair shake for their efforts?

Penalize the rich? Give me a fucking break ... the "rich" have been penalizing the middle class and below with the blessings government once we began taxation.

Capitalism in the United States has a long and honorable tradition of looking out for the backs in which fortunes are built upon.

If businesses, as a whole, made it part of their mission statements to see that employees were justly compensated, well ... none of this would be needed.

Kembal

10-10-2007, 10:41 AM

How is me giving some lazy schlep $1,000 going to make America better off? If that was the case.. why shouldn't I just run around in one of the apartment complexes I am contracting out of and just throw money at the HUD people driving around in their Lexus, Hummers, etc...

When you reward laziness.. it will only encourage more laziness.

It's a "match" (I have to look into what Clove wrote about that regarding the specifics), which means that you have to allocate your own income first into the account, and thus you are working.

Again, encouraging people to save is drastically necessary for the U.S. economy. Our low national savings rate causes us to be reliant on investment dollars coming in from overseas for economic growth. (esp. Chinese) If those dollars were to be pulled out for any reason, we're screwed currently.

Kembal

10-10-2007, 10:44 AM

Errrr, it said that it affects 10,000 households out of what, 330 million people?

Are all family businesses encapsulated in that 10,000? That's amazing!

Just me, but that statistic doesn't feel right.

Latrinsorm

10-10-2007, 10:56 AM

How is it fair to have the government take your farm/restaurant/whatever that you worked hard to create?I'm pretty sure the estate tax isn't 100%.
Working hard to advance the plot of your descendants is the oldest tradition in the book.We've already come to the conclusion as a society that a rich person ought to contribute more (in absolute terms) than a poor person. You can certainly argue that the estate tax is too high, but to argue that it shouldn't exist at all is inconsistent.
I don't like taking from the rich to give to the poor.
Yet you think its a right of the poor to get part of Daddy's money, and he doesn't have a say in it?We already do these things.

Speaking of rhetoric, Ganalon, do you think you could convince PB to drop the "POOR = LAZY" bit?
Show me a better system out there.. that is effective on a large country like the US.I addressed the last statement to Ganalon because it's statements like these that demonstrate your total disconnect with reality: the United States has not ever been pure capitalism, and it's certainly not now. Your insistence that you have "a solid foot in reality" is a mix between laughable and terrifying. This has gone beyond talking points from you.

Celephais

10-10-2007, 11:14 AM

If businesses, as a whole, made it part of their mission statements to see that employees were justly compensated, well ... none of this would be needed.
That's assuming the people getting these handouts are actually working justly. You really think the lazy slob working part time at the grocery store deserves just compensation?

If they worked hard, and actually tried to advance themselves (there are plenty of programs to get an education if you want one) they'd be rewarded justly and none of this would be needed.

Celephais

10-10-2007, 11:16 AM

You can certainly argue that the estate tax is too high, but to argue that it shouldn't exist at all is inconsistent.
So the rich have to pay taxes to earn the money, and then when they give it away they are taxed again? Then when it's spent by whom they gave it to, it's taxed again?

I think it's fine to say the rich absolutely pay more, but they shouldn't be hit multiple times along the ride.

In reality what we need to do is get rid of the loop holes that make it so that just income tax isn't enough.

Tsa`ah

10-10-2007, 11:24 AM

That's assuming the people getting these handouts are actually working justly. You really think the lazy slob working part time at the grocery store deserves just compensation?

You're trivializing an entire workforce with a singular example.

Do you think a person working for a multi billion dollar corporation should work 48 and more hours a week without benefits and for minimum wage?

Give me a fucking break.

If they worked hard, and actually tried to advance themselves (there are plenty of programs to get an education if you want one) they'd be rewarded justly and none of this would be needed.

I sense someone posting who is completely detached from reality.

There are huge gaps in such programs ... and loopholes abound. One can most certainly better themselves through educational programs, but only if they earn so very little to begin with. If they're on their own, no big. Raman noodles and a bus pass. Heaven forbid they make a dime over excessive poverty ... or they're disqualified. This includes any medical coverage.

I'm sorry, but the days of working your way up to the top from the mailroom are gone.

People better themselves all the time, some that do really have no road blocks ... others have nothing but endless detour signs and broken bridges.

Parkbandit

10-10-2007, 11:27 AM

I'm pretty sure the estate tax isn't 100%.We've already come to the conclusion as a society that a rich person ought to contribute more (in absolute terms) than a poor person. You can certainly argue that the estate tax is too high, but to argue that it shouldn't exist at all is inconsistent.We already do these things.

Speaking of rhetoric, Ganalon, do you think you could convince PB to drop the "POOR = LAZY" bit?I addressed the last statement to Ganalon because it's statements like these that demonstrate your total disconnect with reality: the United States has not ever been pure capitalism, and it's certainly not now. Your insistence that you have "a solid foot in reality" is a mix between laughable and terrifying. This has gone beyond talking points from you.

Who the fuck said the US has a PURE capitalist society? That's you putting words in my mouth dipshit.. to try and make yourself look smart.

You failed as usual.

I will agree with you.. I may use the poor = lazy a tad too much. I believe firmly that we as a society have a moral responsibility to care for those who are unable to work.. due to physical or mental disabilities. From there though, I believe we also have a moral responsibility to offer nothing to those that take advantage of our generosity to lay on the couch while their welfare check gets delivered to them. Poor /= lazy.. but there is a shitload of lazy people out there taking advantage of our retarded government.

DeV

10-10-2007, 11:29 AM

Since when did earning between 60k-100k in this country equate to being poor and lazy?

There is something seriously WRONG with that mindset. There are people debating in this very thread who make between this amount, even less. Quit being so damn poor and lazy then, maybe?

Tsa`ah

10-10-2007, 11:34 AM

I will agree with you.. I may use the poor = lazy a tad too much. I believe firmly that we as a society have a moral responsibility to care for those who are unable to work.. due to physical or mental disabilities. From there though, I believe we also have a moral responsibility to offer nothing to those that take advantage of our generosity to lay on the couch while their welfare check gets delivered to them. Poor /= lazy.. but there is a shitload of lazy people out there taking advantage of our retarded government.

The problem with this statement is that the reach around doesn't exist in our system outside of a few anomalous entities. This is why unions gained such popularity and never went away.

The problem with either stance is that the majority gets caught in the middle.

There are free loaders on one end and "may as well be" slave drivers on the other. The result is a large cross section of the populace that can barely keep their heads above the water.

Parkbandit

10-10-2007, 11:37 AM

You're trivializing an entire workforce with a singular example.

Do you think a person working for a multi billion dollar corporation should work 48 and more hours a week without benefits and for minimum wage?

Give me a fucking break.

If they do, then it's THEIR responsibility and not ours. If you don't like the job you are at because of the benifits.. then get another one. Once again, if you are lazy and take the first job you are given and don't bother to continue to look for something better.. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE! I had this employee in Hilton that did a fantastic job and I paid her well for it.. but she was definately overqualified for the position. She had been there for 5 years and she had no motivation to go elsewhere. She could earn probably twice as much elsewhere.. and I even told her that. This was 7 years ago and she's still working there.

I'm sorry, but the days of working your way up to the top from the mailroom are gone.

People better themselves all the time, some that do really have no road blocks ... others have nothing but endless detour signs and broken bridges.

When I come upon a detour sign on the road.. I usually go another way. Boo fucking hoo. IF YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR JOB.. GET A NEW ONE. I've held more jobs in my life than probably most of you. I didn't get to where I am now by just staying behind the road block for someone to clear the road for me.

And neither did you Kagg. Stop making excuses for those too lazy to do anything about their situation.

And I started as a part time houseman in a hotel.. shaking farts and pubs out of sheets. Don't tell me you can't get promoted because that is a bunch of bullshit.

Latrinsorm

10-10-2007, 11:37 AM

Who the fuck said the US has a PURE capitalist society?No one proposed "PURE" socialism, so would that make this statement "Socialism is a fantastic theory.. people living in harmony with everyone working hard and putting all the money into one pot.. and dividing it all up among everyone." a failure or just senile rambling?
I think it's fine to say the rich absolutely pay more, but they shouldn't be hit multiple times along the ride.I leave the particular mechanism up to the economist types. I don't see anything substantially different in paying a certain amount over two types of half-payments or one type of full payment. If it's possible to make income tax and income tax alone function appropriately, great, I've got no problem with that.

Celephais

10-10-2007, 11:40 AM

You're trivializing an entire workforce with a singular example.

Do you think a person working for a multi billion dollar corporation should work 48 and more hours a week without benefits and for minimum wage?

Give me a fucking break.
Obviously there are exceptions, but Parkbandit hit the nail on the head prettty well, our retarded government opens too many loopholes for people to exploit generosity. Almost to the point where I'm ready to say these bad apples fucked up the system for the genuine individuals (That's kneejerk, obviously I don't mean that, but I wish I did).

I do think that people who work for multi-billion dollar corporations for minimum wage are generally lazy, there are exceptions, but I don't care how poor or just above the "programs to get help" level you are, you should be filling out every application for every upwardly mobile job there is. It's not just laziness, it's complacency.

... and loopholes abound.
I'm all for fixing the loopholes. I really think that loopholes on either end of any government program need to be fixed.

I'm sorry, but the days of working your way up to the top from the mailroom are gone.
Then don't work in a fucking mailroom. Some people have fucked up their chances and dug themselves too deep, I'm not sure how to address that one, but any individual born in america has a chance to do right by themselves from the getgo... they just might be too young to realize that it starts sooner than they think.

People better themselves all the time, some that do really have no road blocks ... others have nothing but endless detour signs and broken bridges.
And we're installling reststops along these detours... good way to motivate them to get through it. The loopholes that let them use the aid to stagnate instead of improve is the issue.

Parkbandit

10-10-2007, 11:41 AM

The problem with this statement is that the reach around doesn't exist in our system outside of a few anomalous entities. This is why unions gained such popularity and never went away.

The problem with either stance is that the majority gets caught in the middle.

There are free loaders on one end and "may as well be" slave drivers on the other. The result is a large cross section of the populace that can barely keep their heads above the water.

If you are working for a slave driver.. it's your fault. Leave. Make him suffer with huge turnover rates and shitty employees. His company won't be in business long if people simply didn't put up with it.

the problem is.. people do put up with shit because they don't have the motivation to go elsewhere.

Parkbandit

10-10-2007, 11:54 AM

No one proposed "PURE" socialism, so would that make this statement "Socialism is a fantastic theory.. people living in harmony with everyone working hard and putting all the money into one pot.. and dividing it all up among everyone." a failure or just senile rambling?

God.. why do I bother even reading your bullshit. Here.. since you can't seem to get a clue on your own:

A CAPTIALIST SOCIETY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S A PURE CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

A SOCALIST SOCIETY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S A PURE SOCIALIST SOCIETY.

No one here has ever stated otherwise and you are a retard for making that your point. Welcome to Stanleyville dipshit.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

10-10-2007, 12:19 PM

I'm sorry, but the days of working your way up to the top from the mailroom are gone.

People better themselves all the time, some that do really have no road blocks ... others have nothing but endless detour signs and broken bridges.

Again, WTF. I started my current career at $6 an hour in 1996 and worked my way up from there. I'm not the model of success or "at the top", and I make over six figures in salary, not including my annual bonus and stock options. I took the shitty jobs people didn't want, in locations they didn't want, because I knew I could knock it out of the park where others couldn't. I took jobs I knew would pay me for 40 hours of work but require 60 or 70, because it was a step in my career. Eventually the people who were my peers became my subordinates over time, because they CHOOSE not to do the things I did.

I'm what I would consider average smart, but a hard worker, and I consider myself successful. What made me successful was that I'm a hard worker. Don't hold that against me when I die because I make more money than the average Joe.

Nieninque

10-10-2007, 12:25 PM

Wealth redistribution is great.
Can I borrow a tenner?

Gan

10-10-2007, 12:25 PM

As for Gan's assessment that it's unCapitalist, I agree. I happen to think Capitalism is immoral, and we shouldn't be promoting it, but reigning it in. If that's unAmerican to reign in Capitalism, then I think we should reassess what being American is. I don't remember learning in Civics that the right to inherit 7 million from daddy is a right.

-TheE-

And yet you still, according to previous posts, actively trade on the open market and have an investment portfolio (again according to previous posts) of over 100K.

Not to mention your father is a C level executive with an American company by which you stand to inherit a sizeable amount from upon his demise... again, according to previous posts of yours.

How do you live with yourself for being so immoral?

Can you see the hypocrisy in what you're trying to get others to believe with what you post?

Nieninque

10-10-2007, 12:39 PM

Clove

10-10-2007, 12:42 PM

Can you see the hypocrisy in what you're trying to get others to believe with what you post?

Fuck economic policy, we need to deport theE!

*edit: Answer to Gan's question: No. Hypocrisy doesn't exist in Oz.

Latrinsorm

10-10-2007, 01:14 PM

God.. why do I bother even reading your bullshit. Here.. since you can't seem to get a clue on your own:

A CAPTIALIST SOCIETY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S A PURE CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

A SOCALIST SOCIETY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S A PURE SOCIALIST SOCIETY.

No one here has ever stated otherwise and you are a retard for making that your point. Welcome to Stanleyville dipshit.Deep breaths, mate. Serenity now and all that. :)

"people living in harmony with everyone working hard and putting all the money into one pot.. and dividing it all up among everyone" is pure socialism, period. To put this in your post that also contains ragging on Eschaton for having anti-capitalist leanings implies that the two thoughts are somehow connected. If you were trying to make an incoherent post in which no sentence was related to another, that's certainly your prerogative. I just don't see what the purpose would be.

Is this the part where you decide I'm a Backlash alt even when all evidence points to the contrary? :D

Parkbandit

10-10-2007, 02:32 PM

Deep breaths, mate. Serenity now and all that. :)

"people living in harmony with everyone working hard and putting all the money into one pot.. and dividing it all up among everyone" is pure socialism, period. To put this in your post that also contains ragging on Eschaton for having anti-capitalist leanings implies that the two thoughts are somehow connected. If you were trying to make an incoherent post in which no sentence was related to another, that's certainly your prerogative. I just don't see what the purpose would be.

Is this the part where you decide I'm a Backlash alt even when all evidence points to the contrary? :D

Seriously.. let the adults talk now.. you are only derailing a pretty good conversation with your stupidity.

Thanks.

Parkbandit

10-10-2007, 02:36 PM

And yet you still, according to previous posts, actively trade on the open market and have an investment portfolio (again according to previous posts) of over 100K.

Not to mention your father is a C level executive with an American company by which you stand to inherit a sizeable amount from upon his demise... again, according to previous posts of yours.

How do you live with yourself for being so immoral?

Can you see the hypocrisy in what you're trying to get others to believe with what you post?

If he wasn't so far over the top of OMG CAPITALISM R EVIL!! I would say give him some slack... he's not responsible for the way his capitalist father put him in this situation.

But he is SO bleeding heart.. I think the question does bear asking. If I was so into my economic beliefs as he seems to be here, there is no way I would accept any money from my capitalist pig father.. and if I did get it I would give it all to a charity.