"Occupy Wall Street" videos

[Alfster]

Don't take this personally,cause its not meant to be, but the bullshit antics of these morons who got a Psychology or English degree instead of something marketable and are now crying about how unfair life is, is not news worthy in the first place.

That's a whole lot of assumptions. Catch that on fox news? Not surprising that a military fag would believe that.

[sst]

Psychology is fairly marketable. Most people are just horrible at it.

What jobs is a Bachelors in Psych marketable for?

[sst]

That's a whole lot of assumptions. Catch that on fox news? Not surprising that a military fag would believe that.

umad?

[Warriorbird]

I disagree with you. The better the corporations do (the more profitable) the more people they can afford to hire. Now, regulation generally does what? Eat in to profits, because you spend more time cutting red tape, which cuts in to time someone could be making profits.

Frankly, it's your lets hand shit out to everyone mentality that perpetuates the system of keeping the poor, poor. Why on earth would any of the people who want a handout lift a finger if they knew a government check was on it's way?

Both of these mentalities are sinisterly stupid. Do you really think that corporations just go on happy hiring sprees on the big rock candy mountain when they make more profit?

It's sad to see somebody who's theoretically educated spout that.

[Carl Spackler]

Both of these mentalities are sinisterly stupid. Do you really think that corporations just go on happy hiring sprees on the big rock candy mountain when they make more profit?

It's sad to see somebody who's theoretically educated spout that.

Couple of questions:

What is the goal of a business?

Why do we have families who are poor throughout generations?

[Bobmuhthol]

What jobs is a Bachelors in Psych marketable for?

Any sort of social work, counseling, research, or human resources. For some reason I think you thought I wouldn't have a list.

[Warriorbird]

Couple of questions:

What is the goal of a business?

Why do we have families who are poor throughout generations?

To make profit. Often times the touchstone of profit is dramatically less staff or firing.

Why do you think that not living up to your Horatio Alger ideas are the only reason families remain poor throughout generations? Is that maybe a little short sighted? Does it treat entrepreneurs as touchstones when they're just as often fish in barrel shooters?

You have a set of ideas that are just entrenched as Pippi Longstocking's and just as insidious

[sst]

Any sort of social work, counseling, research, or human resources. For some reason I think you thought I wouldn't have a list.

The first two on your list require further schooling and likely a masters degree. Psych research jobs? Really, there must be a plethora of those out there to be had. Ill give you the HR though.

A BS in psych does not make you a psychologist I'm afraid. Its about as useful as a criminal justice or "homeland security" degree.

[Carl Spackler]

To make profit. Often times the touchstone of profit is dramatically less staff or firing.

Why do you think that not living up to your Horatio Alger ideas are the only reason families remain poor throughout generations? Is that maybe a little short sighted? Does it treat entrepreneurs as touchstones when they're just as often fish in barrel shooters?

You have a set of ideas that are just entrenched as Pippi Longstocking's and just as insidious

Ooh good one at the end there.

If a company is in the red sometimes people have to go, that's a novel idea! But what if the company is profiting, they could afford to not let people go or even hire more people, especially if they were growing... Profits are good. (BTW without profits our country doesn't exist the way you know it. Profits fund our government)


Here's an idea why we have generations of poor families:

Take for instance the single mother who keeps having children with different baby daddy's. She keeps on having kids and receiving WIC payments and Bridge Cards and Medicaid to care for herself and offspring. She has no desire to work, so she doesn't. Yet we continue to care for someone who is perfectly capable of doing so on their own. Unfortunately now she's had 4 kids with 4 dads and they grow up and are more likely to start the cycle all over again.

Not everything is rags to riches, but lazy doesn't deserve handouts. It's a problem the government has created and needs to find a way to deal with it.

[Bobmuhthol]

The first two on your list require further schooling and likely a masters degree. Psych research jobs? Really, there must be a plethora of those out there to be had. Ill give you the HR though.

A BS in psych does not make you a psychologist I'm afraid. Its about as useful as a criminal justice or "homeland security" degree.

Clinical research typically involves a single lead researcher and many research assistants, all of whom typically have a bachelor's degree and no postgrad degrees. Unless, of course, the cute girl in her 20s telling me how to properly piss into a cup has a master's degree -- in that case, I admit to being wrong, certainly.

Same with counselors. They're not psychologists; they're counselors. No postgrad degrees required.

Social work should speak for itself: no typical social workers have something better going on (or they make poor career choices for fun), so it stands to reason that they don't have advanced degrees either.

[sst]

Clinical research typically involves a single lead researcher and many research assistants, all of whom typically have a bachelor's degree and no postgrad degrees. Unless, of course, the cute girl in her 20s telling me how to properly piss into a cup has a master's degree -- in that case, I admit to being wrong, certainly.

Same with counselors. They're not psychologists; they're counselors. No postgrad degrees required.

Social work should speak for itself: no typical social workers have something better going on (or they make poor career choices for fun), so it stands to reason that they don't have advanced degrees either.

I'm sorry bob, but you're wrong. I don't know where you're getting your info but I had to spent 50k to put my wife through grad school in California since her BS in Psychology was as useful as toilet paper in the job market. Now once she had her masters, that's a whole different story...

[Bobmuhthol]

Did you ever consider that your wife was either not good enough or unwilling to accept the salary offered by those jobs? Considering you somehow felt $50,000 was a fair price for an additional degree, I have a feeling it's the latter.

[TheEschaton]

Ooh good one at the end there.

If a company is in the red sometimes people have to go, that's a novel idea! But what if the company is profiting, they could afford to not let people go or even hire more people, especially if they were growing... Profits are good. (BTW without profits our country doesn't exist the way you know it. Profits fund our government)


Here's an idea why we have generations of poor families:

Take for instance the single mother who keeps having children with different baby daddy's. She keeps on having kids and receiving WIC payments and Bridge Cards and Medicaid to care for herself and offspring. She has no desire to work, so she doesn't. Yet we continue to care for someone who is perfectly capable of doing so on their own. Unfortunately now she's had 4 kids with 4 dads and they grow up and are more likely to start the cycle all over again.

Not everything is rags to riches, but lazy doesn't deserve handouts. It's a problem the government has created and needs to find a way to deal with it.

This is a dangerously misinformed opinion of welfare recipients. In fact, it's just another Cadillac Queen story that was debunked as untrue yet still touted in a different form by Republicans to this day.

[sst]

Did you ever consider that your wife was either not good enough or unwilling to accept the salary offered by those jobs? Considering you somehow felt $50,000 was a fair price for an additional degree, I have a feeling it's the latter.

No bob. The jobs were not there. Undergraduate psychology degrees are a dime a dozen making them unmarketable. I'm afrad our experiences differ. Get back to me in 5 years when people you know who got psych degrees are working. Tell me how things went for them.

[Carl Spackler]

This is a dangerously misinformed opinion of welfare recipients. In fact, it's just another Cadillac Queen story that was debunked as untrue yet still touted in a different form by Republicans to this day.


Prove to me that it is untrue, that a daughter born out of wedlock is not more likely to do exactly what mommy did.


Actually here from the NY Times.


Children born out of wedlock in the United States tend to have poorer health and educational outcomes than those born to married women, but that may be because unmarried mothers tend to share those problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html

Weird, sounds a lot like perpetuating the cycle to this guy.

[Rinualdo]

Psychology is fairly marketable. Most people are just horrible at it.

I believe fewer then 25% of BA in Psych holders find work in a related field.


"Opportunities directly related to psychology will be limited for bachelor's degree holders," says the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their Occupational Outlook Handbook. "Some may find jobs as assistants in rehabilitation centers or in other jobs involving data collection and analysis. Those who meet State certification requirements may become high school psychology teachers."

[TheEschaton]

Prove to me that it is untrue, that a daughter born out of wedlock is not more likely to do exactly what mommy did.

That's not the misinformation, the misinformation is that the mother is the typical welfare recipient, or, put another way, that the typical welfare recipient is lazy, undeserving, unwilling to work, and "having babies out of wedlock," as if your retarded moral high ground should be the deciding factor on having children.

[Tgo01]

I'm not saying the typical welfare recipient is lazy and unwilling to work but I haven't met one yet that didn't meet that criteria. I'm not going to pretend that my limited experience with those on welfare means anything, I just found it ironic that the one couple I met that should have actually qualified for welfare were turned down for it. They were living in a hotel paying rent by the week, the husband was out of work and the wife was working at Walmart and these people didn't quality.

Really boggles the mind. Well it boggled mine anyways. I guess the 'problem' was they didn't have any kids.

[Carl Spackler]

That's not the misinformation, the misinformation is that the mother is the typical welfare recipient, or, put another way, that the typical welfare recipient is lazy, undeserving, unwilling to work, and "having babies out of wedlock," as if your retarded moral high ground should be the deciding factor on having children.

Whoa, I gave a single example. I could have gone on to say that there are people who are not capable of working or taking care of themselves, and that we should help them. But those who are capable do not deserve to have the masses taking care of them. McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell all hire regularly... Maybe those jobs would be below 'you', but for someone to sit around and just take money is bullshit.

[Rinualdo]

Whoa, I gave a single example. I could have gone on to say that there are people who are not capable of working or taking care of themselves, and that we should help them. But those who are capable do not deserve to have the masses taking care of them. McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell all hire regularly... Maybe those jobs would be below 'you', but for someone to sit around and just take money is bullshit.

So you are for raising the minimum wage then?

[Carl Spackler]

I'm not saying the typical welfare recipient is lazy and unwilling to work but I haven't met one yet that didn't meet that criteria. I'm not going to pretend that my limited experience with those on welfare means anything, I just found it ironic that the one couple I met that should have actually qualified for welfare were turned down for it. They were living in a hotel paying rent by the week, the husband was out of work and the wife was working at Walmart and these people didn't quality.

Really boggles the mind. Well it boggled mine anyways. I guess the 'problem' was they didn't have any kids.

My old roommate worked for the local welfare office, he was a qualification agent. He basically decided whether or not you got assistance.

He always came home with stories about how people would roll up in their Cadillac's to apply for assistance. These weren't well-educated folks who fell on hard times, these were lazy people who would rather take a little bit from the government each month then get a job they're capable of working.

[Carl Spackler]

So you are for raising the minimum wage then?


Absolutely not. I would lower wages (those people starting government or union jobs [see UAW]) Companies have been able to increase prices because pay has gone higher than it needs to be. We have made ourselves an uncompetitive nation.

[pabstblueribbon]

It was cool back when RATM did it in the 90's. Now its too mainstream for me to participate.

inserthipsterpicture

[Back]

You guys claiming that rich people create jobs have never run a business before.

You want labor costs as low as possible because it eats profit.

[Tgo01]

You guys claiming that rich people create jobs have never run a business before.

You want labor costs as low as possible because it eats profit.

Next thing you'll tell us is businesses want to keep all expenses as low as possible.

[pabstblueribbon]

Next thing you'll tell us is businesses want to keep all expenses as low as possible.

Shipping jobs overseas where the labor costs are far lower while selling these products in the US where premium prices can be charged is a sound strategy for increasing profits.

[Back]

Next thing you'll tell us is businesses want to keep all expenses as low as possible.

Precisely. Any successful business knows how to squeeze a rock to get blood.

Businesses who fail do so because who ever is running it gets sloppy and forgets to watch where the money is going.

[Drunken Durfin]

Urge to read this entire thread: zero
Urge to smack the fuck out of the fucking retard protesters at and around Wall Street that almost made me late for court: Very Fucking High

Every single idiot who does this camp out bullshit needs to get bitch slapped. If you really, really, want to do something write a fucking letter to your fucking congressmen. Not an e-mail. Not a fax. Not a print-out of a form letter that you just sign. A real fucking letter, that you hit F7 on before you print out.

Why? Because a letter, a real letter, scares the shit out of elected officials, and if you ask one they will tell you pretty much this:


A person who takes the time to write a letter takes the time to go vote. The same person who feels strongly enough to write the letter will talk to their friends about their views and most likely win them over to their point of view. One letter could easily equal fifty to one hundred votes.

I'm not a senator's son, but I used to fuck a senator's daughter. The above statement is pretty much his exact words to me one evening while we were discussing the fucking fucks protesting in D.C. in front of the World Bank several years back. Those fuckers made me late for work too.

Take a stance and fight the system through the proper channels or pick up a gun and start a real revolution you fucking nutless cowards. This fucking sit-in 60's nostalgia is a waste of everyone's time. Hippy ass fucking fucks.


/rant

[Back]

/rant

I get what you are saying but also realize that this country was built on saying fuck you to the “man”.

Too many people want to kiss ass to the system in hopes of getting into it when they have no chance whatsoever.

[Drunken Durfin]

I get what you are saying but also realize that this country was built on saying fuck you to the “man”.

...and then actually DOING something. They didn't just say "fuck you" to "the man", there was a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution).

[TheEschaton]

Once again, Back manages to make me want to fucking hit him despite supposedly being on the same side of the issue.

P.s. Carl, you literally said "oh man I only gave one example" then in the next paragraph told me the Cadillac story I proffered as a favorite myth of the right.

Also, working 40 hours a week at McDonald's at 5.15 an hour is $10,712 a year before any taxes. The federal poverty line is 10,830 for a single person as of 2009. Maybe you think that's enough for a single person to live on, but federal poverty guidelines state that housing+utilities should cost 1/3rd or less of your income. $3,570 a YEAR for rent is less than $300 a month. I don't know many places where you can live on that. The problem is, I don't know anyone who works 40 hours a week at McDonalds who aren't managers, because at 40 hours a week, McDonald's is required to start providing benefits. It's in McDonald's interest to hire 2 people for 20 hours a week with no benefits.

But yeah, we should lower the minimum wage so we can be more competitive with 3rd world countries. $5.15 an hour is too much. Unless of course you want to make the absurd argument that 8 hours a day, 5 days a week is "being too lazy" and they should work more so they can break that success-ceiling called the FEDERAL POVERTY LINE.

ETA: P.P.S. If you're driving a new-ish Caddy on welfare, you're either a character in a fairy tale your friend made up, or being allowed to borrow so heavily on credit you don't deserve, due to a lack of regulation of lending practices WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING.

[pabstblueribbon]

Urge to read this entire thread: zero
Urge to smack the fuck out of the fucking retard protesters at and around Wall Street that almost made me late for court: Very Fucking High

Every single idiot who does this camp out bullshit needs to get bitch slapped. If you really, really, want to do something write a fucking letter to your fucking congressmen. Not an e-mail. Not a fax. Not a print-out of a form letter that you just sign. A real fucking letter, that you hit F7 on before you print out.

Why? Because a letter, a real letter, scares the shit out of elected officials, and if you ask one they will tell you pretty much this:

A person who takes the time to write a letter takes the time to go vote. The same person who feels strongly enough to write the letter will talk to their friends about their views and most likely win them over to their point of view. One letter could easily equal fifty to one hundred votes. I'm not a senator's son, but I used to fuck a senator's daughter. The above statement is pretty much his exact words to me one evening while we were discussing the fucking fucks protesting in D.C. in front of the World Bank several years back. Those fuckers made me late for work too.

Take a stance and fight the system through the proper channels or pick up a gun and start a real revolution you fucking nutless cowards. This fucking sit-in 60's nostalgia is a waste of everyone's time. Hippy ass fucking fucks.


/rant

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you really dislike being late.

[Back]

Once again, Back manages to make me want to fucking hit him despite supposedly being on the same side of the issue.

I guess in some way I should be flattered considering your pacifistic attitude.

Then again it is kind of alarming. Not that I am worried about it.

Makes me think you are trying to hard to fit in. And you really don’t need to. The PC are all a bunch of fucks myself included.

[TheEschaton]

...and then actually DOING something. They didn't just say "fuck you" to "the man", there was a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution).

Like I said earlier, I think protesting is a phase. None of my dreadlocked protester friends from college still have dreadlocks and none of them are at these protests. They are public defenders, work at the EPA, the CDC, WHO, Doctors Without Borders, Planned Parenthood, whatever their cause was. Being stuck in that phase is a tragic and sad and pathetic thing, or a shallow, superficial thing, but it's no different than the phases that other young adults go through with any other issue in their lives. When your 35 year old friends still go to clubs and bang any skank they see, you either high five them or shrug and say "Wow, he's kinda immature," but it doesn't garner the same acerbic, overly negative reaction that these kids get for daring to believe something different than you and/or inconveniencing you.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

I guess in some way I should be flattered considering your pacifistic attitude.

Then again it is kind of alarming. Not that I am worried about it.

Makes me think you are trying to hard to fit in. And you really don’t need to. The PC are all a bunch of fucks myself included.

When I talk about people protesting as a shallow, superficial thing to make them feel better about the scarves they wear in hipster bars while sipping imported beers, I'm talking about you. What do you do again?

I have a friend in college who was all into activism and went into advertising after college. When I challenged him, and asked him how he was living out his activism, he responded something to the effect of "well, hopefully one day I'll be successful enough to create my own campaigns to advertise important causes like the World Wildlife Fund or something." In the intervening years, he's been making commercials for BMW and T.J. Maxx and Southern Comfort, and hasn't worked on a single campaign to raise awareness of anything. He's the type of person at these protests - the people who're angry enough to sit in a lawn chair and chant, but aren't really willing to sacrifice anything in their personal and professional lives to do anything about the issues they're chanting about.

[Back]

When I talk about people protesting as a shallow, superficial thing to make them feel better about the scarves they wear in hipster bars while sipping imported beers, I'm talking about you. What do you do again?

I have a friend in college who was all into activism and went into advertising after college. When I challenged him, and asked him how he was living out his activism, he responded something to the effect of "well, hopefully one day I'll be successful enough to create my own campaigns to advertise important causes like the World Wildlife Fund or something." In the intervening years, he's been making commercials for BMW and T.J. Maxx and Southern Comfort, and hasn't worked on a single campaign to raise awareness of anything. He's the type of person at these protests - the people who're angry enough to sit in a lawn chair and chant, but aren't really willing to sacrifice anything in their personal and professional lives to do anything about the issues they're chanting about.

Believe me I know the type. Not all of us creative types are as big douche bags as you lawyer types. You guys win in that respect. Grats.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Once again, Back manages to make me want to fucking hit him despite supposedly being on the same side of the issue.

P.s. Carl, you literally said "oh man I only gave one example" then in the next paragraph told me the Cadillac story I proffered as a favorite myth of the right.

Also, working 40 hours a week at McDonald's at 5.15 an hour is $10,712 a year before any taxes. The federal poverty line is 10,830 for a single person as of 2009. Maybe you think that's enough for a single person to live on, but federal poverty guidelines state that housing+utilities should cost 1/3rd or less of your income. $3,570 a YEAR for rent is less than $300 a month. I don't know many places where you can live on that. The problem is, I don't know anyone who works 40 hours a week at McDonalds who aren't managers, because at 40 hours a week, McDonald's is required to start providing benefits. It's in McDonald's interest to hire 2 people for 20 hours a week with no benefits.

But yeah, we should lower the minimum wage so we can be more competitive with 3rd world countries. $5.15 an hour is too much. Unless of course you want to make the absurd argument that 8 hours a day, 5 days a week is "being too lazy" and they should work more so they can break that success-ceiling called the FEDERAL POVERTY LINE.

ETA: P.P.S. If you're driving a new-ish Caddy on welfare, you're either a character in a fairy tale your friend made up, or being allowed to borrow so heavily on credit you don't deserve, due to a lack of regulation of lending practices WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING.

Federal minimum wage is $7.25 (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm#Consolidated), not that it changes much of what you state above. Frankly I'm amazed that anyone besides pimply HS kids work at McDonalds - any adult that works there isn't looking very hard for a job with a career path more developed than fry station to cashier. I also don't know anyone who works 40 hours a week at McDonalds, but then my circle of friends doesn't really cross over into that social network.

That said, I'm for regulation of lending. Apparently someone making 40k a year needs to be told they can't afford a half million dollar house. It seems readily apparent to me, but we must hold the hands of the retarded so they don't make financially irresponsible choices. Perhaps we should eliminate credit cards altogether to keep people from going into massive debt too.

I even have some vague sympathetic feelings for those protesting on wall street - but when there are so many obvious hipsters protesting, the message gets lost pretty easily. I don't like corp. CEOs getting million dollar bonus's so shortly after being bailed out, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - so long as the shareholders of those companies allow it and the CEOs have done nothing illegal, it's none of our (as in non-shareholders) business. If we hadn't bailed them out, this wouldn't even be a conversation topic.

[Bobmuhthol]

Not all states adopt federal minimum wage.


I've said it before and I'll say it again - so long as the shareholders of those companies allow it and the CEOs have done nothing illegal, it's none of our (as in non-shareholders) business.

63% of Google is owned by financial institutions. 73% of Goldman Sachs is owned by financial institutions. A bunch of other examples. The "shareholders" of these corporations, being other corporations, aren't in the business of stopping those bonuses.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Not all states adopt federal minimum wage.

Yeah. 4 are less than it, and 5 don't have a min wage. The remaining have the same or higher. You can see all that in the link I posted.

[AnticorRifling]

Once again, Back manages to make me want to fucking hit him despite supposedly being on the same side of the issue.

P.s. Carl, you literally said "oh man I only gave one example" then in the next paragraph told me the Cadillac story I proffered as a favorite myth of the right.

Also, working 40 hours a week at McDonald's at 5.15 an hour is $10,712 a year before any taxes. The federal poverty line is 10,830 for a single person as of 2009. Maybe you think that's enough for a single person to live on, but federal poverty guidelines state that housing+utilities should cost 1/3rd or less of your income. $3,570 a YEAR for rent is less than $300 a month. I don't know many places where you can live on that. The problem is, I don't know anyone who works 40 hours a week at McDonalds who aren't managers, because at 40 hours a week, McDonald's is required to start providing benefits. It's in McDonald's interest to hire 2 people for 20 hours a week with no benefits.

But yeah, we should lower the minimum wage so we can be more competitive with 3rd world countries. $5.15 an hour is too much. Unless of course you want to make the absurd argument that 8 hours a day, 5 days a week is "being too lazy" and they should work more so they can break that success-ceiling called the FEDERAL POVERTY LINE.

I heard having more than one job is umpossible to get the things you want...oh wait...I've never had just one job. Mostly because one has been a stress relief for me but also because when I was first starting out I wanted things and knew the only way I was going to get them was to WORK HARD FOR THEM. So I did that, I went out and busted my ass to make sure that the things that my wife and I wanted were obtainable without living outside our means. Why? Because common fucking sense.


ETA: P.P.S. If you're driving a new-ish Caddy on welfare, you're either a character in a fairy tale your friend made up, or being allowed to borrow so heavily on credit you don't deserve, due to a lack of regulation of lending practices WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING.

They are protesting that people don't have enough common sense to realize how to spend their money and they want the government version of mom and dad to say no you can't buy that that's dumb?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

63% of Google is owned by financial institutions. 73% of Goldman Sachs is owned by financial institutions. A bunch of other examples. The "shareholders" of these corporations, being other corporations, aren't in the business of stopping those bonuses.

And I'm fine with that. Financial institutions are in business to make money. If giving their CEOs large bonus's is a factor in that, ok. If they find it's a losing strategy, they stop it.

[Parkbandit]

This is a dangerously misinformed opinion of welfare recipients. In fact, it's just another Cadillac Queen story that was debunked as untrue yet still touted in a different form by Republicans to this day.

Maybe the Tampabay area is just different from the rest of the country.. but I've visited people in their HUD apartments and homes and far more often than not, there is an able bodied person on the couch, waiting for their check to be handed them.

[Parkbandit]

You guys claiming that rich people create jobs have never run a business before.

You want labor costs as low as possible because it eats profit.

lulwut?

Did a poor person hire you for your management job?

[Parkbandit]

ETA: P.P.S. If you're driving a new-ish Caddy on welfare, you're either a character in a fairy tale your friend made up, or being allowed to borrow so heavily on credit you don't deserve, due to a lack of regulation of lending practices WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING.

So, you are blaming the banks for a guy on welfare showing up at the car lot and paying cash for a Caddy?

[Parkbandit]

I guess in some way I should be flattered considering your pacifistic attitude.

Then again it is kind of alarming. Not that I am worried about it.

Makes me think you are trying to hard to fit in. And you really don’t need to. The PC are all a bunch of fucks myself included.

There should be a rule against people with problems, posting after say midnight.

[Parkbandit]

I heard having more than one job is umpossible to get the things you want...oh wait...I've never had just one job. Mostly because one has been a stress relief for me but also because when I was first starting out I wanted things and knew the only way I was going to get them was to WORK HARD FOR THEM. So I did that, I went out and busted my ass to make sure that the things that my wife and I wanted were obtainable without living outside our means. Why? Because common fucking sense.


Why are you a cold, heartless bastard??? I BET YOU ARE WHITE!

[Carl Spackler]

Once again, Back manages to make me want to fucking hit him despite supposedly being on the same side of the issue.

P.s. Carl, you literally said "oh man I only gave one example" then in the next paragraph told me the Cadillac story I proffered as a favorite myth of the right.

Also, working 40 hours a week at McDonald's at 5.15 an hour is $10,712 a year before any taxes. The federal poverty line is 10,830 for a single person as of 2009. Maybe you think that's enough for a single person to live on, but federal poverty guidelines state that housing+utilities should cost 1/3rd or less of your income. $3,570 a YEAR for rent is less than $300 a month. I don't know many places where you can live on that. The problem is, I don't know anyone who works 40 hours a week at McDonalds who aren't managers, because at 40 hours a week, McDonald's is required to start providing benefits. It's in McDonald's interest to hire 2 people for 20 hours a week with no benefits.

But yeah, we should lower the minimum wage so we can be more competitive with 3rd world countries. $5.15 an hour is too much. Unless of course you want to make the absurd argument that 8 hours a day, 5 days a week is "being too lazy" and they should work more so they can break that success-ceiling called the FEDERAL POVERTY LINE.

ETA: P.P.S. If you're driving a new-ish Caddy on welfare, you're either a character in a fairy tale your friend made up, or being allowed to borrow so heavily on credit you don't deserve, due to a lack of regulation of lending practices WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING.

You live in fantasy world don't you? Like Anticor said work two jobs. Hell, get a third. People need to learn to take care of themselves.

Btw, my friends story is not a lie, it's a harsh reality. Maybe you should go back to banging on a drum, I imagine it is the sole thing you're good at in life.

[Alfster]

But all the illegal Mexicans are stealing all the good minimum wage jobs.

[g++]

Illegal immigrants dont make minimum wage. They make 10 dollars an hour with no taxes doing the back breaking shit Americans refuse too. If you think you cant make 10 dollars an hour buy a shovel and stand outside a 7-11 for an hour or two. Someone will hire you.

[Alfster]

Tell that to our cleaning crew

[g++]

I actually would if they lived near Baltimore. Im still in touch with the owner of the land scaping crew I worked with through college. The only limit to how many jobs he does per year is the amount of bodies he can throw at them.

[Gan]

Took an investor client to go view short sale homes for sale a few weeks back. Nothing like walking into a home that is in pre-foreclosure and seeing high end cars in the driveway and expensive furniture/electronics inside.

Priorities man!

[Warriorbird]

Took an investor client to go view short sale homes for sale a few weeks back. Nothing like walking into a home that is in pre-foreclosure and seeing high end cars in the driveway and expensive furniture/electronics inside.

Priorities man!

Something happening some of the time means it is always true!

[Rinualdo]

Something happening some of the time means it is always true!

Especially when you have no additional data.

[Carl Spackler]

Something happening some of the time means it is always true!

Enron was bad, All corporations must be bad too!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Enron was bad, All corporations must be bad too!

LMAO! ZING!

[Tgo01]

I just don't think corporations are kindly happy fairies of joy who will solve everything.

Occupying an area of a city until your demands are met and living off of donations because you refuse to get a job will solve everything.

[AnticorRifling]

I just don't think corporations are kindly happy fairies of joy who will solve everything.

To each according to their need; from each according to their ability. RIGHT COMMRADE?!

[AnticorRifling]

Something happening some of the time means it is always true!

Something happening some of the time means it's not valid because it doesn't happen all of the time!


I like these games.

[Warriorbird]

Something happening some of the time means it's not valid because it doesn't happen all of the time!


I like these games.

All right. Further down the rabbit hole.

Because, apparently, people sometimes cheat at social programs, we shouldn't have social programs.

Therefore, applying the same theory, because Enron was allowed to incorporate, we shouldn't allow anybody to incorporate.

[AnticorRifling]

All right. Further down the rabbit hole.

Because, apparently, people sometimes cheat at social programs, we shouldn't have social programs.

Therefore, applying the same theory, because Enron was allowed to incorporate, we shouldn't allow anybody to incorporate.

Some people are making money and that's bad so no one should be allowed to make money.

[Warriorbird]

Some people are making money and that's bad so no one should be allowed to make money.

Some people are making money! Everybody's okay! Those people will totally give everybody jobs! (Cain, for instance, fired the hell out of a ton of people to make Godfather's profitable)

(This is while neglecting you need customers to buy products.)

[Parkbandit]

Illegal immigrants dont make minimum wage. They make 10 dollars an hour with no taxes doing the back breaking shit Americans refuse too. If you think you cant make 10 dollars an hour buy a shovel and stand outside a 7-11 for an hour or two. Someone will hire you.

$10 an hour? That seems high.

I bet around here, they are making below the minimum wage.

[AnticorRifling]

If it wasn't profitable all jobs would be gone not just the ones that were cut yes?

Business how does it work?!

[Warriorbird]

$10 an hour? That seems high.

I bet around here, they are making below the minimum wage.

In defense of Republicans (in a perverse way) they make about $15 an hour here. The Republican Party also QQs up a storm about illegals, yet crucified Bush when he tried to actually fix the problem (which probably would've permanently won Hispanics for the Republican Party.) and Archer Daniels Midland and Walmart (two massive Republican contributors) are two of the main reasons there are so many illegals in the country.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Some people are making money and that's bad so no one should be allowed to make money.

If I stop making money though, I can go get money due to the fact that i'm not making money, on the government dime!

[Warriorbird]

If I stop making money though, I can go get money due to the fact that i'm not making money, on the government dime!

Right. Because people should totally starve! It's all their fault. No noble benevolent corporation would ever be at fault.

[Parkbandit]

The game of extremes is a useful tactic when debating politics.

Really.

[AnticorRifling]

Right. Because people should totally starve! It's all their fault. No noble benevolent corporation would ever be at fault.

What people are starving that don't have access to social programs we already pay for?

When I lost my job my bills were all covered because I alway save to cover 6-8months of my budget. Common sense is no longer common and somehow that's the fault of corporations. Again it goes back to the "ME ME ME until it's time to identify who's at fault then it's THEM THEM THEM!!!!!" Being responsible might not be fun but it works.

When I built my house I was "approved" for a stupid amount. I did a crazy thing I looked at my finances and said no I want to be at this amount to stay within my budget and account for any unforseen issues. I built a house for less than half of what I was approved for because I made an intelligent decision. HERP DERP I still live there and have no problems making my payments.

But hey it's probably my fault the one's bitching didn't do their homework.

[Warriorbird]

If it wasn't profitable all jobs would be gone not just the ones that were cut yes?

Business how does it work?!

Yet the proposition is that profit immediately equals jobs, which is retarded. You know it.

Business how does it work?!

[Parkbandit]

What people are starving that don't have access to social programs we already pay for?

When I lost my job my bills were all covered because I alway save to cover 6-8months of my budget. Common sense is no longer common and somehow that's the fault of corporations. Again it goes back to the "ME ME ME until it's time to identify who's at fault then it's THEM THEM THEM!!!!!" Being responsible might not be fun but it works.

When I built my house I was "approved" for a stupid amount. I did a crazy thing I looked at my finances and said no I want to be at this amount to stay within my budget and account for any unforseen issues. I built a house for less than half of what I was approved for because I made an intelligent decision. HERP DERP I still live there and have no problems making my payments.

But hey it's probably my fault the one's bitching didn't do their homework.

How dare you have some self responsibility?? Don't you know that you don't have to worry about that anymore.. the government will take care of you!

[Parkbandit]

Yet the proposition is the profit immediately equals jobs, which is retarded. You know it.

You keep putting words in there.. like "immediately".. that no one has used before.

Makes you look silly.

[AnticorRifling]

Yet the proposition is the profit immediately equals jobs, which is retarded. You know it.

I'm not saying that. But a business that isn't profitable doesn't stay in business saying profit = evil is retarded. You know it.

Work hard, get the stuff you want, don't hate on other people for their stuff. Shit is hard.

Be lazy, demand others who have stuff give you some of their stuff. Shit is stupid.

[AnticorRifling]

How dare you have some self responsibility?? Don't you know that you don't have to worry about that anymore.. the government will take care of you!

I'm kind of looking forward to having some Denmark style tax rates because I don't like deciding what to do with my money.

[Warriorbird]

What people are starving that don't have access to social programs we already pay for?

When I lost my job my bills were all covered because I alway save to cover 6-8months of my budget. Common sense is no longer common and somehow that's the fault of corporations. Again it goes back to the "ME ME ME until it's time to identify who's at fault then it's THEM THEM THEM!!!!!" Being responsible might not be fun but it works.

When I built my house I was "approved" for a stupid amount. I did a crazy thing I looked at my finances and said no I want to be at this amount to stay within my budget and account for any unforseen issues. I built a house for less than half of what I was approved for because I made an intelligent decision. HERP DERP I still live there and have no problems making my payments.

But hey it's probably my fault the one's bitching didn't do their homework.

Right. With a strong network of family support and a decent education, your life exactly maps to everybody's. It's the ultimate libertarian conceit. When you're a middle class white dude you can totally support the government never helping anybody.

You're also tacitly saying that no corporation was ever at fault in the downturn. You know how ridiculous this is.

You're attacking people for living up to Republican ideals.

Flip a house! Make more money! No, you bad awful person! Don't do those things!

[AnticorRifling]

Right. With a strong network of family support and a decent education, your life exactly maps to everybody's. It's the ultimate libertarian conceit. When you're a middle class white dude you can totally support the government never helping anybody.

You're also tacitly saying that no corporation was ever at fault in the downturn. You know how ridiculous this is.

You got me figured out. Raised by a single mother at the poverty line (I'm guessing here since I didn't really run the books when I was 7 but I do remember playing baseball and my brother and I shared a glove), busted my ass in school, joined the military, got out and went to work, saved my money. SILVER SPOON!!!!!!

Again if you'd take the time to go read what I've actually posted I'm ok with SOME social programs but I'd prefer to be a mixed economy with just a little bit of socialism and the majority capitalism. And unless I missed it I've yet to say no corporation is ever at fault, I've merely said you must remain profitable to stay open and profit isn't bad.

I will also add HERP DERP.


Since you added shit after I quoted your post:


You're attacking people for living up to Republican ideals.

Flip a house! Make more money! No, you bad awful person! Don't do those things!

I'm not attacking anyone.

I really don't understand the flip a house line.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not saying that. But a business that isn't profitable doesn't stay in business saying profit = evil is retarded. You know it.

Work hard, get the stuff you want, don't hate on other people for their stuff. Shit is hard.

Be lazy, demand others who have stuff give you some of their stuff. Shit is stupid.

Eh. I didn't think you really were, that's more Carl territory. I think the hate that comes from a number of Republicans on people who tried to do better for themselves in the housing bubble is foolish, as is the Ronald Reagan "welfare queen" meme. Welfare pretty much got killed by the combo of Clinton and a Republican Congress.

And tell me your Mom didn't raise you and your brother well. You're also definitely middle class.

RE: House flipping

You did intelligently with your home, even with job loss. The whole Republican ideal was part of what encouraged people to try to flip bigger and bigger houses during the bubble. It bit a lot of them.

[AnticorRifling]

I think the hate that comes from a number of Republicans on people who tried to do better for themselves in the housing bubble is foolish,

Again someone not doing their research and their homework isn't the fault of a business. Reward vs Risk I guess. Personally I don't over extend myself. If I wanted to flip a house I'd make sure I could afford to own the second home in the event it doesn't move. Why? Because I cover my bases because I'm responsible. People doing shit for get rich quick and getting bit in the ass don't get a lot of tears from people who bust their ass to make sure that they will take care of their family. Yes/no/maybe?

[AnticorRifling]

I think the hate that comes from a number of Republicans on people who tried to do better for themselves in the housing bubble is foolish,

Again someone not doing their research and their homework isn't the fault of a business. Reward vs Risk I guess. Personally I don't over extend myself. If I wanted to flip a house I'd make sure I could afford to own the second home in the event it doesn't move. Why? Because I cover my bases because I'm responsible. People doing shit for get rich quick and getting bit in the ass don't get a lot of tears from people who bust their ass to make sure that they will take care of their family. Yes/no/maybe?

Mother fucker stop adding shit after I qoute you or I will beat you with your own eyebrows:


And tell me your Mom didn't raise you and your brother well. You're also definitely middle class.

I'd say probably, but the Marine Corps raised us both a ton. Neither my brother or I can remember a lot of our childhood it's blocked out I really have few memories from 5 to 15. And yes I'm very middle class, didn't start there and I won't end there. I'm so sorry I'm white and I apply myself, those two things I
can't fix.


Son of a bitch:


RE: House flipping

You did intelligently with your home, even with job loss.

As should anyone who's going to be a home owner.


The whole Republican ideal was part of what encouraged people to try to flip bigger and bigger houses during the bubble. It bit a lot of them.

Man that's crazy here I was living in this country during that time frame and I didn't get bit.....couldn't have anything to do with common sense and personal responsibilty I probably just got lucky and somehow the evil corporations missed my mailing address with their FLYERS OF DOOM (tm).

[Warriorbird]

Again someone not doing their research and their homework isn't the fault of a business. Reward vs Risk I guess. Personally I don't over extend myself. If I wanted to flip a house I'd make sure I could afford to own the second home in the event it doesn't move. Why? Because I cover my bases because I'm responsible. People doing shit for get rich quick and getting bit in the ass don't get a lot of tears from people who bust their ass to make sure that they will take care of their family. Yes/no/maybe?

Certainly valid. Simultaneously, doing something like flipping a house appealed to a lot of people who wanted to better themselves and sure, they might've not been as smart, but it was the desire to achieve more just as much as it was mindless greed, and I don't think that's something the party of "achieve more" should be bashing as much as they do.



Mother fucker stop adding shit after I qoute you or I will beat you with your own eyebrows

I did it again!

[AnticorRifling]

Certainly valid. Simultaneously, doing something like flipping a house appealed to a lot of people who wanted to better themselves and sure, they might've not been as smart, but it was the desire to achieve more just as much as it was mindless greed, and I don't think that's something the party of "achieve more" should be bashing as much as they do.

Achieve more != be stupid and try to achieve more. Weighing risk vs gain, doing the research, paying attention, being able to cover your expenses those are personal responsibilities.

[Tgo01]

Warriorbird if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying the Republican party encouraged people to buy houses they couldn't afford?

[AnticorRifling]

Warriorbird if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying the Republican party encouraged people to buy houses they couldn't afford?

He's saying Animal Farm is a good idea as long as I continue to play the part of the horse while hippies protesting get to be the pigs.

[Warriorbird]

Warriorbird if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying the Republican party encouraged people to buy houses they couldn't afford?

Who exactly does the banking lobby, barring Goldman Sachs, lobby?

[Tgo01]

Who exactly does the banking lobby, barring Goldman Sachs, lobby?

Just because I want to see where you're going with this I'll give the answer you're looking for and say Republicans.

[Carl Spackler]

mindless greed


Wouldn't just waiting for a handout be mindless greed as well?

[Warriorbird]

Just because I want to see where you're going with this I'll give the answer you're looking for and say Republicans.

It's not too far. The mortgage industry wrote paper on just about anybody with a pulse. They were assisted in this through deregulation (provided by Republicans and certain Democrats), heavy advertisement (often through conservative media), and get rich quick notions (you too can live the American dream!)

[g++]

$10 an hour? That seems high.

I bet around here, they are making below the minimum wage.

I find it hard to believe but I guess its possible I am speaking from my own experience so thats a good way to be wrong. Florida has alot of argriculture and migrant farm workers can actually get passes to cross the border and work for 10$ an hour. I mean im sure there are counter examples but from my own experience if your willing to do back breaking labor there is market competition for those workers and they get payed decently. If you fall down and break your leg though you are completely fucked obviously.

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL30395.pdf

Average wages for agricultural laborers in 2010 was ~10 dollars even.

[Parkbandit]

Right. With a strong network of family support and a decent education, your life exactly maps to everybody's. It's the ultimate libertarian conceit. When you're a middle class white dude you can totally support the government never helping anybody.

You're also tacitly saying that no corporation was ever at fault in the downturn. You know how ridiculous this is.

You're attacking people for living up to Republican ideals.

Flip a house! Make more money! No, you bad awful person! Don't do those things!

I highlighted the words that make you look silly and put new meaning to points being brought up.

For clarification.. no one said:

Companies are never at fault.
Everyone's life is exactly the same.
Government should never help anyone out.

[Warriorbird]

Wouldn't just waiting for a handout be mindless greed as well?

Yes, which makes it curious how you support handouts for corporations.

[Warriorbird]

I highlighted the words that make you look silly and put new meaning to points being brought up.

For clarification.. no one said:

Companies are never at fault.
Everyone's life is exactly the same.
Government should never help anyone out.

Forwarding nothing for the win!

I actually had a fine time discussing with both of them. I'm sorry you're only trapped in HURP DURP HAET.

[Parkbandit]

Forwarding nothing for the win!

I actually had a fine time discussing with both of them. I'm sorry you're only trapped in HURP DURP HAET.

I didn't see an intelligent discussion on your part.. just hyperbolic words and phrases in hopes that someone would tell you that you were right.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

RE: House flipping

The whole Republican ideal was part of what encouraged people to try to flip bigger and bigger houses during the bubble. It bit a lot of them.


Warriorbird if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying the Republican party encouraged people to buy houses they couldn't afford?

Seriously. I missed that campaign and I'm Republican. Like Anticor I was approved for a stupidly large mortgage but I bought something I was comfortable with rather than trusting the bankers that I could afford twice that. I'm responsible for me, not them, in the end.

I think the banking/housing industry should go tits fucking up and everyone of the people, deserving or not, who bought a house they COULD NOT AFFORD, loses it. The MFING key point here is THEY COULD NOT AFFORD the house. I feel for people who lost their jobs and legit can't make their mortgage, but Joe Starbucks and his 25k annual salary should never have bought that 300k house. FUCK HIM.

And if the bailout of the industry results in someone who's upside down on their mortgage getting money from the government or a pardon or whatever it is, it's a fucking slap in the face to every person who's made every payment and honored THEIR contract. Actions have consequences, at least they should.

Life sucks sometimes. You weigh your options and put yourself in a position where you can survive sucky times, or you put blinders on and hope someone saves you if you hit hard times. Those in the latter can suck my fat nut and if they are lucky, smoke a butt I throw out the window of my car as I'm driving by their homeless ass to my palatial estates.

[Carl Spackler]

Yes, which makes it curious how you support handouts for corporations.

I never supported a handout for corporations. Nice try pinning that one on me though.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't see an intelligent discussion on your part.. just hyperbolic words and phrases in hopes that someone would tell you that you were right.

I'm sorry. I actually have the ability to hold discourse. It must be very trying for you.

Rage on some more. Then I'll talk about it. Meta discussion is dull.

[Warriorbird]

I never supported a handout for corporations. Nice try pinning that one on me though.

What's deregulation? What's tax cuts?

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry. I actually have the ability to hold discourse. It must be very trying for you.

Rage on some more. Then I'll talk about it. Meta discussion is dull.

The only one that seems to be posting in fits of rage here is you.

[Warriorbird]

Seriously. I missed that campaign and I'm Republican. Like Anticor I was approved for a stupidly large mortgage but I bought something I was comfortable with rather than trusting the bankers that I could afford twice that. I'm responsible for me, not them, in the end.

I think the banking/housing industry should go tits fucking up and everyone of the people, deserving or not, who bought a house they COULD NOT AFFORD, loses it. The MFING key point here is THEY COULD NOT AFFORD the house. I feel for people who lost their jobs and legit can't make their mortgage, but Joe Starbucks and his 25k annual salary should never have bought that 300k house. FUCK HIM.

And if the bailout of the industry results in someone who's upside down on their mortgage getting money from the government or a pardon or whatever it is, it's a fucking slap in the face to every person who's made every payment and honored THEIR contract. Actions have consequences, at least they should.

Life sucks sometimes. You weigh your options and put yourself in a position where you can survive sucky times, or you put blinders on and hope someone saves you if you hit hard times. Those in the latter can suck my fat nut and if they are lucky, smoke a butt I throw out the window of my car as I'm driving by their homeless ass to my palatial estates.

...and yet, that bailout was almost universally supported by the Republicans as well as the Democrats.

Just like Savings and Loan bailout beforehand was supported by Republicans all over the place.

Your ideals don't map out to the reality of your politicians (and trust me, this happens to Democrats a lot too.)

And what's the message Joe Starbucks gets/got from conservative media?

"Invest in real estate!" "Make a profit!"

And the message from Republicans?

We don't need to do anything. We better not regulate more! That'd be bad! If people lost a job and can't find another because of it, let them starve.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

...and yet, that bailout was almost universally supported by the Republicans as well as the Democrats.

So are you now changing your answer that it was Republicans to both?

Regardless, I never supported it and my opinion still has not changed.

[Carl Spackler]

What's deregulation? What's tax cuts?

Really? Tell me you aren't this retarded, please?

Tax cuts and deregulation help to make American businesses competitive. The more it costs for me to do business the more it costs the consumer. It's very, very simple.

Now bailouts? No, we should have let them all go tits-up.

[g++]

Suppa you do realize "the banks" is our money right? The banks in America arent independantly wealthy organizations that make poor decisions. They are using our wealth so if they went "tits up" we would all be living under an overpass.

Too big to fail is wrong because banks should not be that big and conglomerated but it doesnt change the fact that if the big banks did fail it would cause a catastrophic depression.

[Warriorbird]

Really? Tell me you aren't this retarded, please?

Tax cuts and deregulation help to make American businesses competitive. The more it costs for me to do business the more it costs the consumer. It's very, very simple.

Now bailouts? No, we should have let them all go tits-up.

How are they not handouts to corporations? Won't they mess them up just like welfare does individuals?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Suppa you do realize "the banks" is our money right? The banks in America arent independantly wealthy organizations that make poor decisions. They are using our wealth so if they went "tits up" we would all be living under an overpass.

Too big to fail is wrong because banks should not be that big and conglomerated but it doesnt change the fact that if the big banks did fail it would cause a catastrophic depression.

I'll play along. If the banks failed, who would own the homes they financed?

[g++]

I honestly dont know. The federal reserve? Does it matter? Banks are bulldozing the houses they repo at this point.

[Carl Spackler]

How are they not handouts to corporations? Won't they mess them up just like welfare does individuals?

I just explained it to you. Deregulation and tax cuts don't mess up a corporation. Retarded leadership can.

Keep trying.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I honestly dont know. The federal reserve? Does it matter? Banks are bulldozing the houses they repo at this point.

Someone would buy them, and people would pay their mortgages to them. If a bank is bulldozing a house, they do it for a reason, not out of spite.

[Warriorbird]

I just explained it to you. Deregulation and tax cuts don't mess up a corporation. Retarded leadership can.

Keep trying.

So handouts don't mess up companies, just people. Right.

[Carl Spackler]

So handouts don't mess up companies, just people. Right.


No, I said tax cuts and deregulation don't. I also stated those weren't handouts.


Keep putting words in people's mouths.

[g++]

Actually people are not buying houses. Which is why banks are bulldozing worthless properties in order to cut their losses and boost the housing market but everytime they do that they are taking a hit and if they were to just wave the white flag and say fuck it we cant handle this the lost investments would simply ripple outward to other institutions and cause a domino effect. Its not like if the banks went under we would all just say "Oh thank god thats over what a stupid bank" everyone would be effected and consumer confidence in american banks would be shattered. It would be a total catastrophe.

[Warriorbird]

No, I said tax cuts and deregulation don't. I also stated those weren't handouts.


Keep putting words in people's mouths.

How are they not handouts?

[Carl Spackler]

How are they not handouts?

Giving someone incentive to do business is not a handout.

Giving someone something for nothing is a handout.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Actually people are not buying houses. Which is why banks are bulldozing worthless properties in order to cut their losses and boost the housing market but everytime they do that they are taking a hit and if they were to just wave the white flag and say fuck it we cant handle this the lost investments would simply ripple outward to other institutions and cause a domino effect. Its not like if the banks went under we would all just say "Oh thank god thats over what a stupid bank" everyone would be effected and consumer confidence in american banks would be shattered. It would be a total catastrophe.

I'm not arguing the market isn't bad, but people are still buying homes. If a bank goes under, another buys their debt. These banks have assets. You don't think confidence in our banks isn't already shattered?

How would it be a total catastrophe?

[Carl Spackler]

So unemployment benefits aren't incentive for somebody to still participate in the economy and not kill American retail?

If you see tax cuts and deregulation as only incentives you're obligated to believe that unemployment benefits really are incentive for somebody to find a job.

Neither is that simple.

What are you trying to get at?

I explained to you why it was not a handout.

Unemployment has nothing to do with this. Unemployment is to help people try and keep up with their expenses if they're job is terminated if they're fired, etc. Some people don't collect it, others are not eligible.

Maybe people should be smarter and, like Anticor does, plan 6 months out. What happened to people taking responsibility for themselves? The government should not be responsible for the day-to-day welfare of it's people who are capable of doing so on their own.

[Warriorbird]

What are you trying to get at?

I explained to you why it was not a handout.

Unemployment has nothing to do with this. Unemployment is to help people try and keep up with their expenses if they're job is terminated if they're fired, etc. Some people don't collect it, others are not eligible.

Maybe people should be smarter and, like Anticor does, plan 6 months out. What happened to people taking responsibility for themselves? The government should not be responsible for the day-to-day welfare of it's people who are capable of doing so on their own.

What happened to companies being able to play on a level playing field? The "free market"? Tax cuts and subsidies encourage reliance and corruption and can kill healthy competition. You're all "Yay, deregulation!" but the very fact of deregulation enabled the current crisis. They're always handouts. Just like unemployment insurance they don't always work.

[Carl Spackler]

What happened to companies being able to play on a level playing field? The "free market"? Tax cuts and subsidies encourage reliance. You're all "Yay, deregulation!" but the very fact of deregulation enabled the current crisis.

So it had nothing to do with people living outside their means?

Just because something is available doesn't mean you have to take it.

[g++]

If a bank goes under and another bank buys their debt they will obviously buy their debt at real value not agree to take on the toxic investments that put the original bank under in the first place. After the housing bubble if that were to happen the amount payed for the debt would be no where near what the bank had borrowed from individuals and other entities to issue the debt so the net difference would be passed along to investors who would be fucked left holding the bag and in many cases may in turn declare. If it ripples enough it could shake confidence in debt in general as people realize theres no place to hide money from bankcrupcy declarations and start pulling out of markets. At the height of the housing crisis were talking about billions to trillions of dollars of worthless paper flying out of banks at the same time.

How do you not see that as a catastrophe?

[Warriorbird]

So it had nothing to do with people living outside their means?

Just because something is available doesn't mean you have to take it.

It has to do with both. I also bet you don't see many companies not taking their handouts.

EDIT:

How many Republican governors rejected stimulus money?

[Carl Spackler]

It has to do with both. I also bet you don't see many companies not taking their handouts.

You obviously are too entrenched in your BS to have a conversation with.

A tax cut or deregulating something is not a handout. It is done in effort to help keep our economy competitive. Because if people like you ran the world and we babysat everyone we wouldn't be able to afford what we currently do. Sadly, our current administration wants to do just that.

[Tgo01]

How many Republican governors rejected stimulus money?

3?

[Atlanteax]

but the very fact of deregulation enabled the current crisis. They're always handouts. Just like unemployment insurance they don't always work.

You mean deregulation as in politicians, in pursuit of votes, applied the thought that everyone should own a home (even if they cannot afford it, and renting would be more appropriate) pressured FNMA & FHLMC to *loosen restrictions on who they can lend to*. *THAT* is the "deregulation" that you are referring to.

That started and sustained the snowball effect, as since those individual mortgages were *not* attractive alone, it was decided to bundle them, as derivatives, and thereby securitize them .. since the thought is that if most of the mortgages in a bundle are sustained it would offset the few that may default, and still be a profitable security.

Well, guess what ... those financial institutions way overestimated the quality/value of the securities, as too many of the underlying mortgages were duds.

So if you are wondering who to blame... *blame the government for getting involved*. As a side note, banks who did not get involved in the derivative business ended up swallowing the banks who took on too much of such foolish risk.

[Warriorbird]

You obviously are too entrenched in your BS to have a conversation with.

A tax cut or deregulating something is not a handout. It is done in effort to help keep our economy competitive. Because if people like you ran the world and we babysat everyone we wouldn't be able to afford what we currently do. Sadly, our current administration wants to do just that.

Deregulating the mortgage industry enabled the massive hole our economy is in. If you can't see that, I'm not sure we can.

Tax cuts are theoretically for that, but like unemployment insurance, what they're theoretically for isn't always what results. Virginia cut corporate property taxes 87%. They drew in no major new businesses and state revenues plummeted as a result.

[AnticorRifling]

Deregulating the mortgage industry enabled the massive hole our economy is in. If you can't see that, I'm not sure we can.
People not being accountable for their own actions did it. Oh I can buy a 400k house and I make 40k a year sure that sounds like a lot but I'm approved so I'm gonna do it.

Saying the industry did it is like saying guns kill people.

[Warriorbird]

People not being accountable for their own actions did it. Oh I can buy a 400k house and I make 40k a year sure that sounds like a lot but I'm approved so I'm gonna do it.

Saying the industry did it is like saying guns kill people.

The industry giving away billions of guns on layaway with no credit or background checks to everybody (including ex felons and the mentally ill) would be a better equivalent. It really might kill people. The firearms industry of America is a hell of a lot more responsible than that.

[AnticorRifling]

Layaway means they can't get to them. And you don't need a credit check to get a firearm.

I don't want to be protected from myself if I want to make a bad decision let me, but let me suffer the consequences of my action don't coddle me and tell me its the big bad company's fault so that I don't learn my lesson and repeat the same dumb ass decision.

There must be as much, if not more, personal accountability in these situations.

[Carl Spackler]

How many Republican governors rejected stimulus money?

So first tax cuts and deregulation, then unemployment, now stimulus? What are you going to try and throw in next?


The stimulus worked wonders!

[Warriorbird]

Layaway means they can't get to them. And you don't need a credit check to get a firearm.

I don't want to be protected from myself if I want to make a bad decision let me, but let me suffer the consequences of my action don't coddle me and tell me its the big bad company's fault so that I don't learn my lesson and repeat the same dumb ass decision.

There must be as much, if not more, personal accountability in these situations.

No background checks with loans like cars might be a better analogy. You don't see the firearms industry handing out guns at payday lenders. Personal responsibility matters. Barring the deregulation, the mortgage industry could not have done all of it though, or fueled the mess we're in.

[AnticorRifling]

No background checks with loans like cars might be a better analogy. You don't see the firearms industry handing out guns at payday lenders. Yeah there's never a pawn show within walking distance of a payday lenders......


Personal responsibility matters. Barring the deregulation, the mortgage industry could not have done all of it. How far would the industry get without the stupidity of the people signing up for those loans?

[Carl Spackler]

Deregulating the mortgage industry enabled the massive hole our economy is in. If you can't see that, I'm not sure we can.

Tax cuts are theoretically for that, but like unemployment insurance, what they're theoretically for isn't always what results. Virginia cut corporate property taxes 87%. They drew in no major new businesses and state revenues plummeted as a result.

Wait! So just like Enron was bad meant all corporations were bad.....

.... Deregulation of one industry (where people had to accept what was offered, nonetheless) means all deregulation is bad!!!


Holy shit, we just solved the problem in one thread!

[Warriorbird]

Wait! So just like Enron was bad meant all corporations were bad.....

.... Deregulation of one industry (where people had to accept what was offered, nonetheless) means all deregulation is bad!!!


Holy shit, we just solved the problem in one thread!

No, merely that tax cuts and deregulation aren't the universal benefit you seem to think they are.

They're handouts. Handouts have unintended consequences. I bet the conservative Supreme Court is still deeply regretful of how they re-empowered unions (while attempting to break campaign finance reform).

And Enron was bad so all corps are was to illustrate how silly your welfare queen nonsense is, not because I believe it.

[Warriorbird]

How far would the industry get without the stupidity of the people signing up for those loans?

Has there ever been a shortage of stupidity in America? Stupidity is one of the reasons we have rules and a government.

[Carl Spackler]

No, merely that tax cuts and deregulation aren't the universal benefit you seem to think they are.

They're handouts. Handouts have unintended consequences. I bet the conservative Supreme Court is still deeply regretful of how they re-empowered unions (while attempting to break campaign finance reform).


To begin with I never said those were a magic bullet, or the absolute answer to our problems, but they're a damn good start.

Let me ask you this: Regulating business/trade/manufacturing more and taxing businesses more, won't have any effect on our economy?

The more it costs for me to do business, the more it costs the next guy, and the next guy, and the next guy. A business isn't going to take a loss on a product unless they absolutely have to, they just pass it along.

Is that too difficult to understand?

[Warriorbird]

To begin with I never said those were a magic bullet, or the absolute answer to our problems, but they're a damn good start.

Let me ask you this: Regulating business/trade/manufacturing more and taxing businesses more, won't have any effect on our economy?

The more it costs for me to do business, the more it costs the next guy, and the next guy, and the next guy. A business isn't going to take a loss on a product unless they absolutely have to, they just pass it along.

Is that too difficult to understand?

It's just not that simple. The 87% corporate property tax cut in Virginia was supposed to mean that the state got new businesses and a boom in revenue. It didn't happen.

As a result, transportation funding was reduced to try to cover the loss. Now transportation funding became a huge issue and new business was further discouraged because the roads became terrible all over.

Regulations on uranium mining might mean that there isn't a sudden uranium boom in the state but they also mean that we still have groundwater (the environmental survey showed it'd devastate aquifers.)

Governor Gilmore campaigned on ending the car tax. The resulting revenue loss is one of the reasons the Democrats took the Governor's Mansion for the next two terms.

[Rinualdo]

To begin with I never said those were a magic bullet, or the absolute answer to our problems, but they're a damn good start.

Let me ask you this: Regulating business/trade/manufacturing more and taxing businesses more, won't have any effect on our economy?

The more it costs for me to do business, the more it costs the next guy, and the next guy, and the next guy. A business isn't going to take a loss on a product unless they absolutely have to, they just pass it along.

Is that too difficult to understand?

Regulation is rarely about profit. It's about protecting consumers and proving a level playing field for businesses to compete in.

[Carl Spackler]

It's just not that simple. The 87% corporate property tax cut in Virginia was supposed to mean that the state got new businesses and a boom in revenue. It didn't happen.

I said it was an effort, not a magic bullet to fix your problem. If your state is not attractive to businesses and you feel overall if effects you, move. You can do that, you know?


As a result, transportation funding was reduced to try to cover the loss. Now transportation funding became a huge issue and new business was further discouraged because the roads became terrible all over.

Cuts are made, your point being? Maybe you should have cut salaries of government employees? My cousin makes about $120k a year to sit on his ass, he laughs about his job in the government.


Regulations on uranium mining might mean that there isn't a sudden uranium boom in the state but they also mean that we still have groundwater (the environmental survey showed it'd devastate aquifers.)

Congrats, you named one (de)regulation: mining of uranium. Is that the only resource available in Virginia?


Governor Gilmore campaigned on ending the car tax. The resulting revenue loss is one of the reasons the Democrats took the Governor's Mansion for the next two terms.

But at the same time how much was spending increasing?

[AnticorRifling]

Has there ever been a shortage of stupidity in America? Stupidity is one of the reasons we have rules and a government.

I thought we had rules and government to take care of the lazy folk.

LAWYERED!!

[Gan]

Deregulating the mortgage industry enabled the massive hole our economy is in. If you can't see that, I'm not sure we can.
There was so much more involved in this perfect storm than simple deregulation.


People not being accountable for their own actions did it. Oh I can buy a 400k house and I make 40k a year sure that sounds like a lot but I'm approved so I'm gonna do it.
This. There is so much blame to go around its not even funny. You can start with the legislators/politicians then widen your circle to include careless and greedy lenders, risky trade vehicles created to spread, divert or disguise risk, as well as greedy borrowers. Everybody gets a seat at the table on this fuckup.

[Carl Spackler]

LAWYERED!!

OH SNAP!!!!!!!111!

[AnticorRifling]

Everybody gets a seat at the table on this fuckup.

Except those of us that lived within our means and are still currently busting our humps, we get to sit at the kid's table. We've got opinions but the drunks and fuckups at the big table won't pay attention.

[crb]

No background checks with loans like cars might be a better analogy. You don't see the firearms industry handing out guns at payday lenders. Personal responsibility matters. Barring the deregulation, the mortgage industry could not have done all of it though, or fueled the mess we're in.

When one out of every two loans ended up being bought by Fannie Mac, you really have some balls to point the blame only at loan originators. That is like blaming the street level drug dealer but holding the cartel completely unaccountable. Had the originators been unable to unload their loans onto someone else, they would not have been able to do this.

The onus to require more stringent lending standards was on the banks or investors who bought the MBS, and on the government entities who did as well.

The banks and investors were punished when their stocks went to shit, and lots of people lost their jobs, the worst banks got the "you will no longer exist" punishment.

Who is holding the politically appointed bureaucrats running all the various government housing programs that, in many cases, mandated lower lending standards, accountable? When will they lose their jobs, have protesters outside of their homes, be sued in civil court, or feel any penalty at all?

What about those in congress who fought against additional higher lending standards? It isn't like it wasn't brought up in years leading up to the crisis. GWB mentioned it in the state of the union more than once. Ron Paul gave almost annual speeches about it on the house floor.

People in glass houses...

[Warriorbird]

This. There is so much blame to go around its not even funny. You can start with the legislators/politicians then widen your circle to include careless and greedy lenders, risky trade vehicles created to spread, divert or disguise risk, as well as greedy borrowers. Everybody gets a seat at the table on this fuckup.

Gan post I agree with.

[Gan]

Except those of us that lived within our means and are still currently busting our humps, we get to sit at the kid's table. We've got opinions but the drunks and fuckups at the big table won't pay attention.

Unfortunately there are some of those who live within their means who elected the politicians and or patronize the banks that had a hand in it. It might be a smaller place setting but we're all still at the table directly or indirectly.

[Gan]

And don't go all Ron Paul on me.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If a bank goes under and another bank buys their debt they will obviously buy their debt at real value not agree to take on the toxic investments that put the original bank under in the first place. After the housing bubble if that were to happen the amount payed for the debt would be no where near what the bank had borrowed from individuals and other entities to issue the debt so the net difference would be passed along to investors who would be fucked left holding the bag and in many cases may in turn declare. If it ripples enough it could shake confidence in debt in general as people realize theres no place to hide money from bankcrupcy declarations and start pulling out of markets. At the height of the housing crisis were talking about billions to trillions of dollars of worthless paper flying out of banks at the same time.

How do you not see that as a catastrophe?

I don't see how that is different than what is happening today.

[crb]

Regulation is rarely about profit. It's about protecting consumers and proving a level playing field for businesses to compete in.

Actually regulation is often about limiting access to the playing field. This is why many big businesses favor regulations. They cannot compete economically so they compete politicially by lobbying for regulations that raise the barrier of entry to their industry forcing small disruptive competitors know. Regulations are about protecting existing interests at the expense of newcomers.

Additionally the idea that they're beneficial tends to be born from a misguided "father knows best" paternalism exhibited by many on the left. These are people, probably like yourself, who believe that the bureaucrat knows best and is actually helping. These people are well intentioned, but they're paving a road to hell.

Also, regulatory agencies have a vested self interest in both regulating, and justifying the need for their regulations. It is about job security. The same way that prison guard unions favor mandatory minimums and three strikes laws. So when the EPA issues a report justifying the need for the EPA, there is a huge conflict of interest there. There is also a bit of cronyism in play. Politicians who have many friends who need favors enjoy having many agencies which they can use to give their friends pretty good jobs.


Then there is straight corruption. Many regulations end up picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Making one product more expensive, and another cheaper. The right regulation could cost trillions of wealth for one group, while providing trillions to another. Money and special interests obviously play a role. You think Al Gore's involvement in selling carbon credits has nothing to do with his climate change advocacy?

You would be very very mistaken to think government regulatory agencies are hookers with hearts of gold.

[g++]

I don't see how that is different than what is happening today.

http://beta.finance.yahoo.com/

See how the ticker at the top doesnt display the number 0? Thats the difference.

[Warriorbird]

Actually deregulation is often about limiting access to the playing field. This is why many big businesses favor deregulation. They cannot compete economically so they compete politicially by lobbying for the removal of regulations to raise the barrier of entry to their industry forcing small disruptive competitors out. The removal of regulations is often about protecting existing interests at the expense of newcomers.

Additionally the idea that deregulation is beneficial tends to be born from a misguided "corporation knows best" paternalism exhibited by many on the right. These are people, probably like yourself, who believe that the company knows best and is actually out to benefit all of us and all companies. These people are well intentioned, but they're paving a road to hell.

Also, companies have a vested self interest in both deregulating and ignoring regulations. It is about profit without any morality. When the regulatory agencies are made up of members of the industries regulated there is a huge conflict of interest there. There is also a bit of cronyism in play. Companies who have many friends who need favors enjoy having many agencies which they can use to give their friends pretty good jobs.


Then there is straight corruption. Deregulation may end up picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Making one product more expensive, and another cheaper. The right instance of deregulation (the mortgage industry, say) could cost trillions of wealth for one group, while providing trillions to another. Money and special interests obviously play a role. You think George Bush's involvement with the oil industry has nothing to do with oil industry deregulation?

You would be very very mistaken to think companies are hookers with hearts of gold.

Fixed.

[Tgo01]

I haven't seen any news stories about these Occupy protests today, have they already grown that obscure to not even garner a report? Or is it only newsworthy on the weekends when the Union workers have some free time to join the protests?

[AnticorRifling]

We get it commrade, all companies are the devil.

[Tgo01]

We get it commrade, all companies are the devil.

Just the ones who try to turn a profit.

[Warriorbird]

We get it commrade, all companies are the devil.

I just believe in self reliance. The small business I'm involved with doesn't need government handouts or the government to suddenly not regulate the purity of our product.

[AnticorRifling]

I just believe in self reliance.

I don't think these words mean what you think they mean given EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT of yours in this thread :)

[Carl Spackler]

Fixed.

This just showed how blatantly ignorant you are to how the real world works, congrats.

[Gan]

I don't think these words mean what you think they mean given EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT of yours in this thread :)

You mean we aren't invoking the context rule?

Context: only applies in direct thread succession. If someone or something posts in between the last argument and the current post then all reference to context becomes null and void.

[Warriorbird]

I don't think these words mean what you think they mean given EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT of yours in this thread :)

I think assisting in the stability of society is just fine, providing that society is making active efforts to improve itself. I actually like post reform welfare.

I think corporations should only get a leg up when they've actually changed how they do business, too, rather than just who lobbies hardest.

[Warriorbird]

This just showed how blatantly ignorant you are to how the real world works, congrats.

Mmm. In the big rock candy mountain, corporations automatically hire more when they make more profit and tax breaks always improve revenue and deregulation never has any consequences.

[Carl Spackler]

Mmm. In the big rock candy mountain, corporations automatically hire more when they make more profit and tax breaks always improve revenue and deregulation never has any consequences.

Sad how many times the same things have to explained to you.

[Gan]

I think assisting in the stability of society is just fine, providing that society is making active efforts to improve itself. I actually like post reform welfare.

I think corporations should only get a leg up when they've actually changed how they do business, too, rather than just who lobbies hardest.

But if the legislators (crack fiends) refuse to accept (buy) the lobby gifts (crack) then it would not matter what the evil businesses empower their lobbiests (dealers) to do.

[Warriorbird]

But if the legislators (crack fiends) refuse to accept (buy) the lobby gifts (crack) then it would not matter what the evil businesses empower their lobbiests (dealers) to do.

You and I both know legislators are like

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GxZr6io-nYs/TVn9FATQoGI/AAAAAAAAAT8/5u638lkD8B0/s1600/new-jack-city-chris-rock.jpeg

[Warriorbird]

Sad how many times the same things have to explained to you.

I bet this "nothing bad ever happens due to corporate handouts" and "fuck everybody unsuccessful" world is so uplifting.

[Gan]

You and I both know legislators are like

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GxZr6io-nYs/TVn9FATQoGI/AAAAAAAAAT8/5u638lkD8B0/s1600/new-jack-city-chris-rock.jpeg

haha, awesome shirt.

*Racist.

[crb]

Fixed.

There are two problems with your "correction."

1. I favor removing regulatory agencies, which means there would be no place there for corporations to put a friendly face.

2. I would never assume that a corporation would do anything but look out for their own self interest. That is normal human nature. The market, consumers, are in the end the ultimate regulator as such. What can be more democratic than people choosing which businesses to patronize?

People on the left for instance tend to hate Walmart because "they treat their employees like shit." or "They drive mom and pop stores out." Or really because they strongly resist unionization, which pisses the unions off because unions like money. However, the democracy of the marketplace says that they're a good store, people like shopping there. Maybe not the kind of people you hang out with, but then again you don't really think your opinion is more important than the hicks of middle america, do you? Who are you to say what kind of store they should shop in?

If Walmart really offended a majority of people to a large degree, they wouldn't shop there. The store would not be successful.

You can even look at things like the food supply. Do you know what happens after an outbreak of some food borne illness? The companies responsible end up fucked. It is in their self interest to prevent this.

I just read an article about the EPA nudging in on the USDA's turf and trying to add additional regulations to genetically engineered food, which has no history anywhere of any harm to anything. It is not necessary, it is not helpful, it raises costs for the consumer, and it can retard scientific innovation.

The problem with the liberal mindset is that liberals tend to have the arrogance to think that they know best for everyone, that people who disagree with them just haven't been "educated" enough on the matter, or "communicated with enough" if your Obama, so they tend to favor these paternalistic regulations. Saving us from ourselves. Thinking "If only those proles were as enlightened as us they'd never shop in a non-union shop, or buy an SUV, or eat salt."

It is trying to do an end run around the natural democracy of the marketplace.


----

edit, actually there are way more than two problems.

Deregulation, cannot pick winners and losers, since it is the lack of a biased entity.

The profit motive is moral. I'll give you an example how. A few decades ago China opened their economy, allowing capitalism, profits, etc. This single act has brought more people out of poverty than all the charity, welfare, and foreign aid ever given anywhere in the world. Profit is not a bad word, self interest is not bad, these are the things that improve civilization. In fact, the immoral thing is to deny a person or group the full enjoyment of the fruits of their labor.

[Warriorbird]

There are two problems with your "correction."

1. I favor removing regulatory agencies, which means there would be no place there for corporations to put a friendly face.

2. I would never assume that a corporation would do anything but look out for their own self interest. That is normal human nature. The market, consumers, are in the end the ultimate regulator as such. What can be more democratic than people choosing which businesses to patronize?

People on the left for instance tend to hate Walmart because "they treat their employees like shit." or "They drive mom and pop stores out." Or really because they strongly resist unionization, which pisses the unions off because unions like money. However, the democracy of the marketplace says that they're a good store, people like shopping there. Maybe not the kind of people you hang out with, but then again you don't really think your opinion is more important than the hicks of middle america, do you? Who are you to say what kind of store they should shop in?

If Walmart really offended a majority of people to a large degree, they wouldn't shop there. The store would not be successful.

You can even look at things like the food supply. Do you know what happens after an outbreak of some food borne illness? The companies responsible end up fucked. It is in their self interest to prevent this.

I just read an article about the EPA nudging in on the USDA's turf and trying to add additional regulations to genetically engineered food, which has no history anywhere of any harm to anything. It is not necessary, it is not helpful, it raises costs for the consumer, and it can retard scientific innovation.

The problem with the liberal mindset is that liberals tend to have the arrogance to think that they know best for everyone, that people who disagree with them just haven't been "educated" enough on the matter, or "communicated with enough" if your Obama, so they tend to favor these paternalistic regulations. Saving us from ourselves. Thinking "If only those proles were as enlightened as us they'd never shop in a non-union shop, or buy an SUV, or eat salt."

It is trying to do an end run around the natural democracy of the marketplace.

So do you actually like a free market or do you like monopolies?

Have you ever read "The Jungle?" That's how well corporations regulate slaughterhouses.

[TheEschaton]

Questions:

1) Since you seem to agree one 40 hour a week job at minimum wage might not be enough to pay for the things you "need" or the things you "want" (a debate we haven't had yet), how many hours a week is "fine" for doing what is necessary to live above the poverty line? 60? 80? Maybe we should all just have 3 jobs and then we'll all be fine, we'll finally be able to afford what we need. The reason this is a problem is because 50 years ago, a family of four could survive off one 40 hour a week salary, and since then cost of living has soared while income has stagnated. This isn't solely because of inflation, but has a lot to do with deregulation of business to allow them to push prices up with no limits while the minimum wage is relatively level, and with the lowering of the top income taxes, which I believe were above 70% at that point. When did it become necessary for a family to have at least two jobs to support a family? Those great 80s, when the income tax was slashed, and the market deregulated, under that great leader Reagan.

2) When did we become a nation that abides by the idea that we can't trust what our banking and financial institutions say we're approved for? I understand the concept of personal responsibility is at issue here, but I don't think it's a sign of horrible irresponsibility to trust what your bank says you're eligible for. The problem is, for a few decades now, banks have taken increased risks by lending out more money because they have less to lose from people defaulting and more to gain from them not. So they're approving people for loans not based on a metric of whether they can afford the loan, but based on the profit margin for the bank, which includes if the loan gets defaulted on. The banks profit, the people get gouged either by paying off larger loans at higher rates or by defaulting, unless they're smart enough to be suspicious of banks. You and I would never take out loans we couldn't afford, perhaps, but I obviously think the average consumer is dumber than you and I, and, more importantly, our market system puts a lot of money into misinformation and keeping them dumb, because it boosts their profit.

[TheEschaton]

Also, crb, you're a stupid shit. Walmart is successful because they have the lowest prices, which they have because they drive out competition in a race to the bottom, treat their employees like shit, and block unionizing. Then, when the people they've treated like shit get their shitty paychecks, there's nowhere else they can afford to shop but Walmart.

A place can be "offensive" in terms of its business practices, and still be successful, if there's a lack of viable options for people.

[pabstblueribbon]

There are two problems with your "correction."

1. I favor removing regulatory agencies, which means there would be no place there for corporations to put a friendly face.

2. I would never assume that a corporation would do anything but look out for their own self interest. That is normal human nature. The market, consumers, are in the end the ultimate regulator as such. What can be more democratic than people choosing which businesses to patronize?

People on the left for instance tend to hate Walmart because "they treat their employees like shit." or "They drive mom and pop stores out." Or really because they strongly resist unionization, which pisses the unions off because unions like money. However, the democracy of the marketplace says that they're a good store, people like shopping there. Maybe not the kind of people you hang out with, but then again you don't really think your opinion is more important than the hicks of middle america, do you? Who are you to say what kind of store they should shop in?

If Walmart really offended a majority of people to a large degree, they wouldn't shop there. The store would not be successful.

You can even look at things like the food supply. Do you know what happens after an outbreak of some food borne illness? The companies responsible end up fucked. It is in their self interest to prevent this.

I just read an article about the EPA nudging in on the USDA's turf and trying to add additional regulations to genetically engineered food, which has no history anywhere of any harm to anything. It is not necessary, it is not helpful, it raises costs for the consumer, and it can retard scientific innovation.

The problem with the liberal mindset is that liberals tend to have the arrogance to think that they know best for everyone, that people who disagree with them just haven't been "educated" enough on the matter, or "communicated with enough" if your Obama, so they tend to favor these paternalistic regulations. Saving us from ourselves. Thinking "If only those proles were as enlightened as us they'd never shop in a non-union shop, or buy an SUV, or eat salt."

It is trying to do an end run around the natural democracy of the marketplace.

My problem with Wal-Mart is that they encourage the use of state or federal assistance to their employees while denying to hire them full-time to avoid providing any benefits.

There's a figure out there about how much Wal-Mart employees cost the tax payer but its been a really long time and their practices may have changed, but I doubt it.

Here's the biggest reason though:

When the company was starting out there was a clear effort to find American manufacturers to supply the merchandise that Wal-Mart sold. This is obviously no longer the case..

You probably already knew this though. That slant on 'people from the left' isn't a very good one, unless you were trying to do the ol' reverseroo and slant on yourself/party? You're a tricky one sir, a tricky one indeed.

[Hulkein]

I had to be in City Hall today (Philadelphia) and the Occupy Phila tents were numerous but no one was out of them. Looks like the tenants were sleeping in on this dreary Thursday. They were asleep when I walked in at 9 and still snoring at 11, lol.

[Carl Spackler]

I bet this "nothing bad ever happens due to corporate handouts" and "fuck everybody unsuccessful" world is so uplifting.

Is it not the democrats who are all: Woe is me, I'm so miserable. FML.

[Atlanteax]

Fixed.

You got it wrong, crb had it "right" there.

[g++]

I had to be in City Hall today (Philadelphia) and the Occupy Phila tents were numerous but no one was out of them. Looks like the tenants were sleeping in on this dreary Thursday. They were asleep when I walked in at 9 and still snoring at 11, lol.

Hulkein please take your Occupy Wall street comments to an appropriate thread. This is the red vs blue thread now.

[Warriorbird]

Is it not the democrats who are all: Woe is me, I'm so miserable. FML.

I think it's only recently extended to both parties. I think both of them need to come to terms with each of these movements.

[Warriorbird]

I had to be in City Hall today (Philadelphia) and the Occupy Phila tents were numerous but no one was out of them. Looks like the tenants were sleeping in on this dreary Thursday. They were asleep when I walked in at 9 and still snoring at 11, lol.

According to the little sister not all of them have permission to sleep places, so they move in and out in shifts. She's said they've also been partying pretty hard. I suggested that might get some traction with conservatives. She said the response would be something on the order of "Protests don't have to be lame/some of it is donated."

[Atlanteax]

According to the little sister not all of them have permission to sleep places, so they move in and out in shifts. She's said they've also been partying pretty hard.

Is not that what Life is all about? A great big party, sustained by hand-outs from Big Government?

[Keller]

http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/11392464233/1/tumblr_lt0686RRfl1r4cih1

[Warriorbird]

Is not that what Life is all about? A great big party, sustained by hand-outs from Big Government?

Only when it's not figuring out ways to not support your country while maximizing profit for yourself while working to kill American consumerism permanently.

[pabstblueribbon]

Is not that what Life is all about? A great big party, sustained by hand-outs from Big Government?

Dear Yoda,

Do you think corporate handouts, corporate wellfare, or crony capitalism is more damaging than social welfare or vice versa?

A lot of conservatives/republicans/whatever always mention social, but they don't ever mention the other. Why is that?

Signed,
Jedi in training

[Carl Spackler]

Only when it's not figuring out ways to not support your country while maximizing profit for yourself while working to kill American consumerism permanently.

Sounds like Obama-ism.

[Gan]

Questions:

1) Since you seem to agree one 40 hour a week job at minimum wage might not be enough to pay for the things you "need" or the things you "want" (a debate we haven't had yet), how many hours a week is "fine" for doing what is necessary to live above the poverty line? 60? 80? Maybe we should all just have 3 jobs and then we'll all be fine, we'll finally be able to afford what we need. The reason this is a problem is because 50 years ago, a family of four could survive off one 40 hour a week salary, and since then cost of living has soared while income has stagnated. This isn't solely because of inflation, but has a lot to do with deregulation of business to allow them to push prices up with no limits while the minimum wage is relatively level, and with the lowering of the top income taxes, which I believe were above 70% at that point. When did it become necessary for a family to have at least two jobs to support a family? Those great 80s, when the income tax was slashed, and the market deregulated, under that great leader Reagan.
We have had that debate numerous times - it was while discussing Opportunity Cost.

It became necessary for a family to have 2 jobs to support it when their utility costs rose from their desire to have flat screen TV's, 500 cable channels, wireless internet, new cars and the latest iPhone.



2) When did we become a nation that abides by the idea that we can't trust what our banking and financial institutions say we're approved for? I understand the concept of personal responsibility is at issue here, but I don't think it's a sign of horrible irresponsibility to trust what your bank says you're eligible for. The problem is, for a few decades now, banks have taken increased risks by lending out more money because they have less to lose from people defaulting and more to gain from them not. So they're approving people for loans not based on a metric of whether they can afford the loan, but based on the profit margin for the bank, which includes if the loan gets defaulted on. The banks profit, the people get gouged either by paying off larger loans at higher rates or by defaulting, unless they're smart enough to be suspicious of banks. You and I would never take out loans we couldn't afford, perhaps, but I obviously think the average consumer is dumber than you and I, and, more importantly, our market system puts a lot of money into misinformation and keeping them dumb, because it boosts their profit.
The part in bold needs to be past tense. That's not the case since 2008. Give it 10 years without some form of increased regulation (or a repeal of the Graham Leech Bliley Act) and you might see it this way again. But not now.

[Carl Spackler]

http://on.wsj.com/pIjqVk


Uh Oh, could mean big profits...
Are the hippies mad at google now?

[Warriorbird]

http://on.wsj.com/pIjqVk


Uh Oh, could mean big profits...
Are the hippies mad at google now?

Google doesn't make their money screwing everybody (and actually enables business success) so probably not.

[Gan]

Google doesn't make their money screwing everybody (and actually enables business success) so probably not.

By not paying taxes on that money - who exactly are they screwing?

[TheEschaton]

We have had that debate numerous times - it was while discussing Opportunity Cost.

It became necessary for a family to have 2 jobs to support it when their utility costs rose from their desire to have flat screen TV's, 500 cable channels, wireless internet, new cars and the latest iPhone.


The part in bold needs to be past tense. That's not the case since 2008. Give it 10 years without some form of increased regulation (or a repeal of the Graham Leech Bliley Act) and you might see it this way again. But not now.

You don't think families 50 years ago pursued the latest technology for their homes and tried to have the best of everything? I'd be interested to see what a pioneering 3 channel black and white t.v. cost, adjusted for inflation. My feeling is that it would be similar to what we pay for tvs on average.

Also, as to your second point, if you want to argue that these protesters are idiots who're late by about 10 years, I'll have no problem with that.

[Tgo01]

You don't think families 50 years ago pursued the latest technology for their homes and tried to have the best of everything? I'd be interested to see what a pioneering 3 channel black and white t.v. cost, adjusted for inflation. My feeling is that it would be similar to what we pay for tvs on average.

According to my parents they grew up in houses that didn't even have indoor plumbing much less televisions.

[TheEschaton]

According to my dad he walked to school uphill both ways in the snow, which must of been quite a feat for New Delhi.

Was your family middle class suburbanites?

[Tgo01]

According to my dad he walked to school uphill both ways in the snow, which must of been quite a feat for New Delhi.

My dad had this story too, and he claimed he walked 5 miles to school. When we visited his childhood home the school was literally down the street from him, maybe 4 blocks away, all flat land.

[Gan]

You don't think families 50 years ago pursued the latest technology for their homes and tried to have the best of everything? I'd be interested to see what a pioneering 3 channel black and white t.v. cost, adjusted for inflation. My feeling is that it would be similar to what we pay for tvs on average.
I think families 50 years ago were much more practical and pragmatic with their finances and needs vs. wants than families are today. I'm going to leave the rest of your stupid comparison alone because of just that. Leave the economics alone, it will hurt you.



Also, as to your second point, if you want to argue that these protesters are idiots who're late by about 10 years, I'll have no problem with that.
That's just it - when everthing was peachy keen they were not around to protest. They only smell up the place after the shit hits the fan. But if they were smarter than that - they would have found a way to make a difference 10 years ago wouldn't they? If they want to impress me - how about picking up after themselves. There's a start.

[Warriorbird]

(Not forwarding any arguments.)

This is actually interesting reading.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/

[diethx]

Also, crb, you're a stupid shit. Walmart is successful because they have the lowest prices, which they have because they drive out competition in a race to the bottom, treat their employees like shit, and block unionizing. Then, when the people they've treated like shit get their shitty paychecks, there's nowhere else they can afford to shop but Walmart.

A place can be "offensive" in terms of its business practices, and still be successful, if there's a lack of viable options for people.

You should check out Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on Walmart.

[Warriorbird]

You should check out Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on Walmart.

I have. I don't think the end product of capitalism is a monopoly.

[diethx]

I have. I don't think the end product of capitalism is a monopoly.

I'm sorry, did you just say that Walmart is a monopoly (I got sarcasm from your post), or did I misread you?

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry, did you just say that Walmart is a monopoly (I got sarcasm from your post), or did I misread you?

Of course it conveniently avoids any treatment as such, what with nobody having the balls to bust trusts these days. I just disagreed with their conclusion that Walmart is the outcome of capitalism.

Sure, it's the biggest company in the world. I'm not sure that it doesn't impede competition, competition that might oppose the stasis it generates and the sheer China boosterism it achieves.

[diethx]

Okay, you're not sure it doesn't impede competition. But you don't know that it does or have any examples of it?

[TheEschaton]

What was the general conclusion of P&T's discussion on Walmart?

[Warriorbird]

Okay, you're not sure it doesn't impede competition. But you don't know that it does or have any examples of it?

http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2007/db20070423_364297.htm

Here's an example. It occurs in pretty much every possible sales item.

[diethx]

That it creates jobs for people who are very happy to have those jobs (it featured a few Walmart employees who refuted your statements about being treated like shit, and who claimed that Walmart gave them a job when they couldn't get one elsewhere), and that it's the end product of capitalism

[diethx]

http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2007/db20070423_364297.htm

Here's an example. It occurs in pretty much every possible sales item.

I'm about to walk into class so no time to read it right now. Can you give me a synopsis? Is it basically just that Walmart can price its items so low that other companies can't compete with the section of the market that only cares about price and nothing about quality, service, etc.?

[Warriorbird]

I'm about to walk into class so no time to read it right now. Can you give me a synopsis? Is it basically just that Walmart can price its items so low that other companies can't compete with the section of the market that only cares about price and nothing about quality, service, etc.?

Oh, it just talks about a bunch of businesses (not just small ones) driven out of business or severely damaged by it, including a number that were once in my area.

I don't think it treats workers too badly, personally. I know Alok's mileage is far different on that. Though would Walmart workers talk badly about it on tv while they were still employed by it?

[Bobmuhthol]

I'd be interested to see what a pioneering 3 channel black and white t.v. cost, adjusted for inflation. My feeling is that it would be similar to what we pay for tvs on average.

The cost structure of the television industry is just slightly different, as are the benefits to consumers. And inflation is a really shitty tool because "the price level" is different for each individual.

Having said that:
1952, a 20-inch GE black and white television sold for $299.95. Using CPI for All Urban Consumers: All Items, that translates to $2,529.14 today, and it wasn't the most expensive television on the market either. If we use the Personal Consumption Expenditure (this is what the Fed actually uses in its inflation targeting), the same television would cost $2,076.63 today.

In short: no, it's not what people pay for TVs on average.

[Parkbandit]

The cost structure of the television industry is just slightly different, as are the benefits to consumers. And inflation is a really shitty tool because "the price level" is different for each individual.

Having said that:
1952, a 20-inch GE black and white television sold for $299.95. Using CPI for All Urban Consumers: All Items, that translates to $2,529.14 today, and it wasn't the most expensive television on the market either. If we use the Personal Consumption Expenditure (this is what the Fed actually uses in its inflation targeting), the same television would cost $2,076.63 today.

In short: no, it's not what people pay for TVs on average.

Using 1952 is skewing your price greatly.. since TV was not "average" back then. It would be like buying a 3-D TV when they first came out... of course they are going to be more expensive at the very beginning.

[Bobmuhthol]

TheE specifically referred to a "pioneering 3 channel b&w TV." That's why I half-heartedly tried to qualify why the comparison isn't good before making it.

[Valthissa]

YI'd be interested to see what a pioneering 3 channel black and white t.v. cost, adjusted for inflation. My feeling is that it would be similar to what we pay for tvs on average.



In these types of comparisons, average hours worked to acquire the same durable good is the best measure.

No one working in the 50's could buy a PC or a cell phone since they did not exist. These types of goods, along with much larger houses, consume larger portions of the average working adults income.

For a TV the curve is approximately 400 hours in 1955, 100 in 1970 and 30 today.

By memory, the inflation adjustment from 1951 to 2011 is about 850%.

C/Valth

[TheEschaton]

The point was that cutting edge things that people wanted were comparable chunks of cutting edge stuff were similar (adjusted) prices, but they've become less affordable now. As The Wedding Singer reminded us, 6-CD CD players used to cost like 600 bucks.

[Ceyrin]

About a year before all this flat-screen jazz started, you could go to your local k-mart/walmart/target and get a 36 inch flat screen (but still tube television) with a DVD player built in for under 100$

Clearly that market needed a pick-me-up.

Today, you can't find that anymore, and you'll be lucky to get away with a 19 inch flat screen (lcd or otherwise) for under 250$.

Nobody I know is making that much more today than they were 5 years ago (or whenever it was this whole flat screen revolution started).

I can say this, I'd rather have that 36 inch with the DVD built in than a 19 inch LCD any day of the week, even if the prices were reversed.

[pabstblueribbon]

You should check out Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on Walmart.

Is this in response to http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php ? I would like to watch it.

Here's an interesting snippet. Whats up with that comma though? Is it 1.5 billion or what?


WAL-MART Costs Taxpayers $1,557,000,000,00 to Support its Employees
"The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year - about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
$100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
$108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
$9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The total figure is based on the average $420,750 per-store figure, multiplied by 3700 (the approximate number of stores currently in the United States).
Source: Rep. George Miller / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, "Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart", February 16, 2004.WAL-MART and Full Time Status
In the film, a former Wal-Mart co-manager claims that store managers are told to "Keep the number of associates from being full time, as many as you can, keep many of them part time, as much as you can." A paragraph in a recently released internal memo from Wal-Mart corroborates the co-manager's statement:
5. Capture savings from current initiatives to improve labor productivity. These initiatives include reducing the number of labor hours per store, increasing the percentage of part-time Associates in stores, and increasing the number of hours per Associate.

Source: Wal-Mart Internal Memo [PDF File (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/26walmart.pdf)], via New York Times
Wal-Mart says that "Wal-Mart's 'full time' status begins at 34 hours per week, not 28, for associates hired after 2002." Before 2002, however, Wal-Mart's definition of full-time WAS 28 hours per week, and was raised in 2002 to 34 hours per week in order to raise the bar for healthcare eligibility for their employees - as the raise in hours coincided with the increase in eligibility requirements for healthcare. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-mart), "In 2002, Wal-Mart increased the waiting period for enrollment eligibility from 90 days to 6 months for full-time employees. Part-time employees must wait 2 years before they may enroll in the plan, and they may not purchase coverage for their spouses or children. The definition of part-time was changed from 28 hours or less per week to less than 34 hours per week." The change was not done to benefit more full-time employees, but to discourage more employees from being eligible for Wal-Mart's healthcare plan.

Suppose we accepted this correction. The 34-hour per week full-time definition still is not the 40-hour definition employed by most businesses in America. Also, at Wal-Mart's stated average hourly wage of $9.68 per hour (source: WalmartFacts.com (http://www.walmartfacts.com/)), a 34-hour week results in an annual wage of only $17,114 � STILL below the poverty line for a family of four.

[Bobmuhthol]

The total figure is based on the average $420,750 per-store figure, multiplied by 3700 (the approximate number of stores currently in the United States).

Does the average Wal-Mart have 200 employees???

[TheEschaton]

I think it's 200 employees on the payroll, not 200 there at any given time. That doesn't sound unreasonable when you think of all the people in the back loading and stocking, etc.

[Warriorbird]

Does the average Wal-Mart have 200 employees???

Seems low from what I remember when they were plugging the Super Center.

[Tgo01]

Seems low from what I remember when they were plugging the Super Center.

They always claim they'll create 500 jobs so the city will approve the building of a new store.

Of course they never create anywhere near 500 jobs. 200 sounds about right, if anything it's high.

[4a6c1]

^That is so sad

[Parkbandit]

They always claim they'll create 500 jobs so the city will approve the building of a new store.

Of course they never create anywhere near 500 jobs. 200 sounds about right, if anything it's high.

Where did you get this tactic from.. walmartsucks.com?

How often do you believe this strategy will work? I mean, they have some 8000+ stores. And do you believe that a city would tell them "No thanks, 200 isn't enough.. but if you hired 500, then heck yea!"

[g++]

I could believe a walmart provides for 500 jobs in a more abstract way. Delivery drivers. Taking fractions of people at wal-mart corporate etc.

[~Rocktar~]

They always claim they'll create 500 jobs so the city will approve the building of a new store.

Of course they never create anywhere near 500 jobs. 200 sounds about right, if anything it's high.

Last time I knew, over a year ago, an average 24hour Walmart Super Center doing around 70-120 million in retail sales a year has around 500-600 employees on the payroll, most are part time at around 20 hours a week. They were working hard to pare this down and cut positions and hours.

[Tgo01]

Where did you get this tactic from.. walmartsucks.com?

How often do you believe this strategy will work? I mean, they have some 8000+ stores. And do you believe that a city would tell them "No thanks, 200 isn't enough.. but if you hired 500, then heck yea!"

My bad I got that wrong, they claim they'll create that many jobs in order to receive tax breaks, which companies do all the time for promising jobs (http://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/wal-mart-gets-tax-break-for-boosting-state-s-economy-1.1016557).

However companies usually promise way more jobs than they actually deliver (http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/mar04/030904.htm) yet usually keep their tax breaks.


Last time I knew, over a year ago, an average 24hour Walmart Super Center doing around 70-120 million in retail sales a year has around 500-600 employees on the payroll, most are part time at around 20 hours a week. They were working hard to pare this down and cut positions and hours.

http://walmartstores.com/aboutus/7606.aspx

Regular store: Each store employs about 225 associates.
Supercenters: Supercenters average 185,000 square feet and employ about 350 or more associates.

[Gan]

The point was that cutting edge things that people wanted were comparable chunks of cutting edge stuff were similar (adjusted) prices, but they've become less affordable now. As The Wedding Singer reminded us, 6-CD CD players used to cost like 600 bucks.

Your relation of economics to the movie The Wedding Singer pretty much sums up why you should stay far away from these types of discussions.

[Gan]

Seems low from what I remember when they were plugging the Super Center.

I would submit that a 24 hour super center employs more than 200 employees considering the size of the operation, range of staff positions required and the hours of operation.

Retail workers, floor reps, cashiers, floor supervisors, management, security, stockers, grocery (butcher, bakery, produce, etc.) janitorial, general maintenance, dock workers, customer service, cart reclaimers, automotive shop mechanics, parts desk and more that I'm sure I'm not thinking of.

[diethx]

Oh, it just talks about a bunch of businesses (not just small ones) driven out of business or severely damaged by it, including a number that were once in my area.

I don't think it treats workers too badly, personally. I know Alok's mileage is far different on that. Though would Walmart workers talk badly about it on tv while they were still employed by it?

No, they probably wouldn't talk badly about the company while still working there. I dunno, I guess I just don't get that phony feel from Penn & Teller's show - in that I don't feel they'd have someone on there to spew bullshit (lol u see what I did thar?) and actually agree with them.

Seriously though, I understand that Walmart has harmed mom n pop stores who just can't compete with the low prices. I also feel though that Walmart has done a lot of good for a lot of people. Not just those who couldn't find work elsewhere, but those who cannot afford the higher prices at said mom n pop stores. But to call them a monopoly is pretty silly, as people who can afford a choice will have a LOT of places to choose from for food, housewares, clothing, electronics, etc.

[pabstblueribbon]

No, they probably wouldn't talk badly about the company while still working there. I dunno, I guess I just don't get that phony feel from Penn & Teller's show - in that I don't feel they'd have someone on there to spew bullshit (lol u see what I did thar?) and actually agree with them.

Seriously though, I understand that Walmart has harmed mom n pop stores who just can't compete with the low prices. I also feel though that Walmart has done a lot of good for a lot of people. Not just those who couldn't find work elsewhere, but those who cannot afford the higher prices at said mom n pop stores. But to call them a monopoly is pretty silly, as people who can afford a choice will have a LOT of places to choose from for food, housewares, clothing, electronics, etc.

Is someone arguing with me? I'm incredibly bad at detecting sarcasm. Who likes gravy?

Oh.

[Liagala]

I'm pretty sure this fits into the conversation somewhere.

http://lolzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/119471340.jpg

[Rinualdo]

Here's some fact checking on all those job killing regulations.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Parkbandit]

Here's some fact checking on all those job killing regulations.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICANS_DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

So they aren't "Huge" job killers.. but we can all agree that they don't create jobs, right?

[Rinualdo]

So they aren't "Huge" job killers.. but we can all agree that they don't create jobs, right?

Who said regulations were about creating jobs?

[Deathravin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyCRDyDUWQk

[diethx]

I'm pretty sure this fits into the conversation somewhere.

http://lolzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/119471340.jpg

:rofl:

[Tgo01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyCRDyDUWQk

That guy with the glasses is awesome. He just sits there the whole time hardly blinking until he's asked a question then answers it calmly after hearing some guy yell at him for 3 minutes.

I also love how it says "Red in the Face" at the bottom.

[Parkbandit]

Who said regulations were about creating jobs?

Precisely.

So, additional regulations.. specifically the amount of them coming from the current administration.. hinders job growth and certainly doesn't help companies create new jobs.

[TheEschaton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyCRDyDUWQk

Must be nice to have your own show to just yell at your own guests.

[TheEschaton]

I also love the MSNBC interns in the back occasionally looking back at him to see if they're gonna need to call security.

[Deathravin]

He hits the nail on the head. We need absolute campaign finance reform.

* Public money for all political campaigns based on what you're running for.
* You must only spend it on your campaign.
* You cannot take contributions from any other source, be they private, corporate, public or personal.

Get the contribution money out of politics.

Then clean up lobbyists.

* Offering and Taking bribes of political officials is illegal
* All income from all politicians 100% transparent - part of the job
* Make insider trading laws apply to politicians - sort of silly that they don't.


It's not all that needs to be done, but at least it's a start.

[Rinualdo]

Precisely.

So, additional regulations.. specifically the amount of them coming from the current administration.. hinders job growth and certainly doesn't help companies create new jobs.

I believe you mean to say "barely hinders job growth" and provide many other benefits to our country, such as ...

Unless you think the only role of the government is to stimulate job growth?

[Parkbandit]

I believe you mean to say "barely hinders job growth" and provide many other benefits to our country, such as ...

Unless you think the only role of the government is to stimulate job growth?

Where did you get the idea that I believe that government's "only" role is to stimulate job growth.

Let WB play the stupid games.. he does them oh so well.

[Rinualdo]

Where did you get the idea that I believe that government's "only" role is to stimulate job growth.

Let WB play the stupid games.. he does them oh so well.

You didn't, of course, but then why bring the issue of regulations up at all? So why are you against these regulations?

[TheEschaton]

He hits the nail on the head. We need absolute campaign finance reform.

* Public money for all political campaigns based on what you're running for.
* You must only spend it on your campaign.
* You cannot take contributions from any other source, be they private, corporate, public or personal.

Get the contribution money out of politics.

Then clean up lobbyists.

* Offering and Taking bribes of political officials is illegal
* All income from all politicians 100% transparent - part of the job
* Make insider trading laws apply to politicians - sort of silly that they don't.


It's not all that needs to be done, but at least it's a start.

I agree with his message, I just find it funny to have a talk show where you have guests, then you spend the time yelling at them and not talking with them. LOL.

[Rinualdo]

I just find it funny to have a talk show where you have guests, then you spend the time yelling at them and not talking with them. LOL.

You must enjoy the O'Reilly Factor

[Parkbandit]

You didn't, of course, but then why bring the issue of regulations up at all? So why are you against these regulations?

You brought regulations up... trying to say they aren't a "huge" burden to the economy.

My point is that if we are trying to get this economy up and going, why would we continue to push out more and more and more regulations like the current administration is doing?

[Rinualdo]

My point is that if we are trying to get this economy up and going, why would we continue to push out more and more and more regulations like the current administration is doing?

Because we can't singularly focus on the economy without addressing the other areas of responsibility the government has, such as protecting those citizens with and without jobs?

Let me ask you this, why, if we are trying to get this economy going, why is the Republican House continuing to push out more and more regulations on social reform? Like this week's House vote on abortion?

[Parkbandit]

Because we can't singularly focus on the economy without addressing the other areas of responsibility the government has, such as protecting those citizens with and without jobs?

We should prioritize the economy right now... period.



Let me ask you this, why, if we are trying to get this economy going, why is the Republican House continuing to push out more and more regulations on social reform? Like this week's House vote on abortion?

I don't know about it... but does it have anything to do with the government spending money for abortions? Or was it attached to something, like a spending cut bill?

If it was just a regulation to do something about abortions that isn't fiscally related, then I agree.. they need to get their priorities in order.

[Rinualdo]

We should prioritize the economy right now... period.



I don't know about it... but does it have anything to do with the government spending money for abortions? Or was it attached to something, like a spending cut bill?

If it was just a regulation to do something about abortions that isn't fiscally related, then I agree.. they need to get their priorities in order.


I don't recall the details. Even if it was federal funding for abortions, the amount would be so insignificant it's not worth discussing as a monetary issue.

I disagree with you about prioritizing vis-a-vis the economy. I don't suggest we ignore it, but I also don't suggest that to be the only thing Congress addresses in the next 6 months.

Also, there is an argument to be made that its not up to the government to make jobs. Didn't the Governor of your state say that this week?
It's certainly a Tea Party mantra that the government does more harm then good, and there's some truth to that.

[Atlanteax]

Let me ask you this, why, if we are trying to get this economy going, why is the Republican House continuing to push out more and more regulations on social reform? Like this week's House vote on abortion?

For similar reasons why Democrats are looking to push out more and more regulations on various things as well?

It is called trying to get re-elected by catering to constituent voters.

Sometimes I wonder how much better off the U.S. would be if we had some sort of meritocracy in order to be in government, akin to the classical Chinese examination system.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You must enjoy the O'Reilly Factor

Have you ever watched O'Reilly? He actually does let his guests make their points. I'd liken his show to a clearly right wing agenda show that allows for open discourse. Since it's his show, he usually gets the last word. If you can stand how absurdly right wing he is, it can actually be informative.


Edit to say - I don't watch it, but my Father does all the time and I watch it at his house. I'd liken O'Reilly to the right wing version of the Daily Show, without as much humor.

[Parkbandit]

I don't recall the details. Even if it was federal funding for abortions, the amount would be so insignificant it's not worth discussing as a monetary issue.

I disagree with you about prioritizing vis-a-vis the economy. I don't suggest we ignore it, but I also don't suggest that to be the only thing Congress addresses in the next 6 months.

Also, there is an argument to be made that its not up to the government to make jobs. Didn't the Governor of your state say that this week?
It's certainly a Tea Party mantra that the government does more harm then good, and there's some truth to that.

Government doesn't create jobs (well, except public sector jobs.. which isn't what we're talking about) but they create the environment in which businesses can either flourish or flounder. Currently, the administration has decided to focus on the latter.

[Rinualdo]

Have you ever watched O'Reilly? He actually does let his guests make their points. I'd liken his show to a clearly right wing agenda show that allows for open discourse. Since it's his show, he usually gets the last word. If you can stand how absurdly right wing he is, it can actually be informative.


Edit to say - I don't watch it, but my Father does all the time and I watch it at his house. I'd liken O'Reilly to the right wing version of the Daily Show, without as much humor.

Of course I had. All he does is yell at and insult his guests when they disagree with him.

[Tgo01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHRxv-40WMU&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL4E342DF4BCE80408

[Gan]

Because we can't singularly focus on the economy without addressing the other areas of responsibility the government has, such as protecting those citizens with and without jobs?

Let me ask you this, why, if we are trying to get this economy going, why is the Republican House continuing to push out more and more regulations on social reform? Like this week's House vote on abortion?

The GOP House does not want Obamacare to fund any part of abortions. So they are making an effort to block that part. That's the issue before the House as I understand it.

[Rinualdo]

The GOP House does not want Obamacare to fund any part of abortions. So they are making an effort to block that part. That's the issue before the House as I understand it.

Right. I believe 7 times so far with this Congress.
How is that creating jobs, exactly?

[Gan]

Right. I believe 7 times so far with this Congress.
How is that creating jobs, exactly?

How is it not creating jobs?

[Ceyrin]

http://www.thecoathangerproject.com/Images/coat%20hanger%20project%20logo.jpg

[Apotheosis]

lol

http://www.gpariseau.com/wwwroot/lol.jpg

[Warriorbird]

lol

http://www.gpariseau.com/wwwroot/lol.jpg

I hope his minimum wage job does him well.

[Apotheosis]

I hope his minimum wage job does him well.

I just thought the pic was funny..

I graduated with minimal debt and feel sorry for the people that are sitting with 20k+.. but I worked my ass off and took longer than most to finish college..

the thing is the pic makes a good point.. I know many people that went to school without a plan, or an idea as to what they wanted to do and now they're stuck with a degree that is pretty much expensive toilet paper..

[Tgo01]

I hope his minimum wage job does him well.

Good point. He should be hanging out around Wall Street demanding free money.

[Warriorbird]

Good point. He should be hanging out around Wall Street demanding free money.

Or QQing about protest after his party spent a full election cycle being all "Yay, protest!" Oh wait, he is doing that.