On the road to Communism

[03_SHOOTER]

For those of you who recall, there was some "furor" about my Comrade Obama "bumper sticker" a while back, especially by those who support(ed) Comrade Obama, but it would seem that once again was I only slightly ahead of the crowd.

uuwgHNtyD54

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

03 SHOOTER is prescient.

I saw it coming (yes, I know, I made some comments that supported Obama, just wanted to give the man a voice), and quite frankly... Comrades Lenin, Stalin, and Marx, and Trotsky, would be proud.

I wonder if our Founding Fathers ever saw this coming... the breaking of their ideologies and their plans by a world view that came long after their deaths.

[HairyEyeball]

They may not have specifically imagined socialism, but they were well aware of the possibility of corrupting the Constitutional government. Accosting him leaving the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin: "What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" His reply: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

The 'hard work' has already been accomplished: The Revolution won, the Constitution written and ratified - and kept for over a century. All we need to do is pull it from the neglect and disuse it has fallen into...and haven't most of us already given our solemn oath to do so?

I would also suggest to those like-minded individuals who desire to take a more 'active' part in the restoration of the republic two sites: http://www.resistnet.com/ (an outgrowth of Grassfire.com ) and http://americac2c.ning.com/ (which grew from the patriotic resistance site). I would use the 'invite' function on both to target those of you I know are interested, but the software seems to be at odds with my current computer (not surprisingly, formerly owned by a liberal).

[AFCadetSteel]

I'm glad i've found a place where you can logically criticize President Obama without being called a racist hatemonger.

Glenn Beck is a smart man, one of the few truth telling, straight to the point, American journalists out there right now.

I hope that within the next few months, America will realize that they elected a puppet, a character of empty promises. The citizens will not be happy.

For example, CNN had a report that CENTCOM has told Obama that his 16 Month withdrawl plan is, well not so great. They have developed a 19 and 23 month plan though. I want to see how Americans react when our troops are still in there after 16 months.

But anyways, Obama admitted he wanted to "spread the wealth as in a socialist society" in that Detriot Radio Interview, and the man (in my opinion from research) is not even a US Citizen.

[TruBlu]

Here's what I think, and I'm sure I'm about to catch flak, but this is it. PBHO is backed into a corner. His 'bailout,' like anyone's 'bailout,' plan is being raped by Congress when each state wants a cut. Pelosi and the like have destroyed any 'plan' that has come about by adding BS like public works projects to the mix and cash in the hands of the middle class. Public works are great, don't get me wrong, and while they create jobs, they do not create permanent jobs like a 'bailout' should. Also, $1,000 for every middle class worker is great right, free cash? What the hell is that really going to do. We don't want free money, we want tax cuts that don't reduce are already reduced income. The 'bailout' has to be a necessary spending by the government, nothing more.

As to the executive pay limits for these massive companies, their pay should not be limited, instead those executives who have screwed those companies into the cluster @#$% of an economy we find ourselves in today should be fired and sent on their merry way. Instead of setting pay limits, why don't we simply increase the taxation on companies that hurt our economy by shipping out work overseas. I say tax those 'entrepreneurs' double that of American based, operated, and functioning companies. That would sure as hell save more money than limiting executive pay.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Kind of out there... but...

http://www.lovecalculator.com/love.php?name1=Barack+Hussien+Obama&name2=Communism

http://www.lovecalculator.com/love.php?name1=United+States+of+America&name2=Barack+Obama

The love calculator has spoken.

[TruBlu]

LOL! I love it!

[JohnP]

Kind of out there... but...

http://www.lovecalculator.com/love.php?name1=Barack+Hussien+Obama&name2=Communism

http://www.lovecalculator.com/love.php?name1=United+States+of+America&name2=Barack+Obama

The love calculator has spoken.

That's funny, I don't care who you are!

[wukong]

As to the executive pay limits for these massive companies, their pay should not be limited, instead those executives who have screwed those companies into the cluster @#$% of an economy we find ourselves in today should be fired and sent on their merry way. Instead of setting pay limits, why don't we simply increase the taxation on companies that hurt our economy by shipping out work overseas. I say tax those 'entrepreneurs' double that of American based, operated, and functioning companies. That would sure as hell save more money than limiting executive pay.

You are so naive. You can cause business to ship jobs overseas due to taxes (a minimum wage is a tax) but you cannot tax them back. Money has no loyalty except to itself.

Let me give you another example. A pair of shoes that sells for $35 can be made in the US for $30. It can be made in Haiti for $25 with a $5 shipping cost. The job will move to Haiti because of the 35% corporate tax. Although there is an illusionary profit margin of $5 in each case, after corporate taxes the profit on the US made shoes is $3.25 whereas in Haiti the corporate shareholder will receive well close to $5 after paying some small bribe. I am not an altruistic investor and neither are you or your parents.

Let me offer up another example. In New York the tax on a pack of cigarettes is $2.75. The tax in South Carolina is $0.17. Suppose an entrepreneur drove his van down to Spartenburg and loaded up to sell lower priced cigarettes to his working class friends (janitors, bell hops, plumbers, etc) for a modest profit. Who is the real criminal and who is the greedier, the poor schlock that invested in the cigarettes or the poor schlocks who knowingly purchased the untaxed merchandise? These tax revenues are ALWAYS I MEAN ALWAYS used to fund vital government services. Governments always use the Washington Monument ploy to justify taxes. When ever a move is made to cut funding to the Department of the Interior, the first counter by this government agency is to suggest that the Washington Monument is to be closed. New York will be required to lay off police, firefighters and emergency services.

I would use the 'invite' function on both to target those of you I know are interested, but the software seems to be at odds with my current computer (not surprisingly, formerly owned by a liberal).
I was wondering what happened to my old boat anchor.

[TruBlu]

You are so naive. You can cause business to ship jobs overseas due to taxes (a minimum wage is a tax) but you cannot tax them back. Money has no loyalty except to itself.

Ship jobs overseas isn't the phrase I would use. Shipping a job would incur that the job was being maintained, but moved. It's more like shifting jobs overseas. Americans are employed when a job is 'shipped,' in example the military, but when a job is shifted, an American is not employed. Instead foreign countries and the company shifting jobs gets a temporary increase in profit due to the lack of taxation. Eventually the lovely situation we find ourselves in today occurs, where millions of hard working Americans get laid off because companies are constantly paying certain individuals too much at the top and consistently 'relocating' their assets, and then they want to be bailed out. I understand the logic in moving a company if you are going to be taxed less, if that is the only factor. But it isn't.

Irrefutable statement ahead: That company may save money in the short term, but the result is less employed Americans and less money that the government can collect to protect those companies when their money is set ablaze. Less employed Americans means fewer transactions of funds, which means fewer companies are meeting their pay roles. This leads to even more lay offs and the like.

Wait, that sounds like what's happening today... Go figure.

I am not an altruistic investor and neither are you or your parents.

Funny that you say that seeing as though my father, after his recent trip to Thailand, has become a proponent of what is called "Buddhist Economics," a very altruistic economic process.

[03_SHOOTER]

These tax revenues are ALWAYS I MEAN ALWAYS used to fund vital government services.

No they are not, they are used to fund totally unconstitutional, frivolous, and completely unnecessary governmental "services", along with ensuring perpetual employment for the millions of uneducated, mouth-breathing, drooling unionized governmental employees that are too stupid to get a job in "the real world" who are hired and payed exorbitant salaries to administer them, for which We The People are robbed at gunpoint.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, HUD, Section 8, Head Start, AFDC, and all of the other "give away programs" that consume over 60% of our national budget every year are most assuredly NOT "vital government services" wukong, only those things specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution are "vital government services", everything else is PAP!

As to "taxing them back", there is in fact a way to do that, by lowering, or eliminating the Corporate Tax, or better yet abolishing the 16th Amendment and adopting the FairTax, in which case over $13 TRILLION in US owned business that is currently operating overseas would return to the US so fast that it would make your head spin.

[wukong]

Ship jobs overseas isn't the phrase I would use. Shipping a job would incur that the job was being maintained, but moved. It's more like shifting jobs overseas. Americans are employed when a job is 'shipped,' in example the military, but when a job is shifted, an American is not employed. Instead foreign countries and the company shifting jobs gets a temporary increase in profit due to the lack of taxation. .

Rather than getting caught up in semantics, I would posit that the usual complaint for overseas outsourcing is,"They are shipping our jobs overseas." No one owns their job. It is provided by an employer,

Eventually the lovely situation we find ourselves in today occurs, where millions of hard working Americans get laid off because companies are constantly paying certain individuals too much at the top and consistently 'relocating' their assets, and then they want to be bailed out. I understand the logic in moving a company if you are going to be taxed less, if that is the only factor. But it isn't.

What right do you or the public in general have to dictate to shareholders how much an executive should receive in compensation? There are thousands of well managed business not seeking or expecting "bail outs." Many of these companies expand into new areas and create new jobs by efficient use of profits. Why should poorly managed business be bailed out. If the underlying business is there, the efficiently run business will purchase the assets of the poorly run business and rehire all those "hard working" Americans. These "hard working" Americans may have to take a cut in pay, but that is the price one must pay when you voluntarily work for a poorly run business.

Irrefutable statement ahead: That company may save money in the short term, but the result is less employed Americans and less money that the government can collect to protect those companies when their money is set ablaze. Less employed Americans means fewer transactions of funds, which means fewer companies are meeting their pay roles. This leads to even more lay offs and the like.

Wait, that sounds like what's happening today... Go figure.

If you study American history you will see a "panic" occurs on an average about 7-10 years. The last was the "Dot Com" bubble. The market invariably corrects quickly when left alone. The "great depression" of the 30's resulted from government intervention to "help" the needy because of the "crisis." The current "crisis" is the result of "altruistic" as opposed to "greedy" consumers buying things they did not need or afford. Buying more things that are not needed or affordable will not fix the "crisis."

Funny that you say that seeing as though my father, after his recent trip to Thailand, has become a proponent of what is called "Buddhist Economics," a very altruistic economic process.

Perhaps you will give us a website to explore this new economic theory

[03_SHOOTER]

The challenge that we're facing today is that the government, through these "bail outs" is in fact engaging in blatant Socialism, and from there it's only one small step to full blown Communism. They "bailed out" the banks, and as a result they now "own" the financial system, they have and are "bailing out" some of our major employers, and as a result they now "own" at least some of the means of production, and in this latest "spendulus package" they're implimenting new healthcare regulations giving them control over the means of medical care. The only question is..."what's next"?

A government that can give you everything, can deny you anything.

[TruBlu]

Rather than getting caught up in semantics, I would posit that the usual complaint for overseas outsourcing is,"They are shipping our jobs overseas." No one owns their job. It is provided by an employer,

True enough, but it is to my belief that an American based company should be American operated. That is not so much the case with many many companies. Job outsourcing is great for big companies that want to make a bit more profit at the expense of the American economy. But for those companies that do not wish to screw the American economy, well they keep most if not all jobs here.

Why should poorly managed business be bailed out. If the underlying business is there, the efficiently run business will purchase the assets of the poorly run business and rehire all those "hard working" Americans.

I am in agreement with you here. I do not believe these companies should be bailed out. But the 'bailout' is to save a company per-say, but the people they employ.

that is the price one must pay when you voluntarily work for a poorly run business.

You can't make that statement. Sometimes, and by sometimes I mean most of the time, working for a poorly run business (which isn't usually apparent until said company begins to seek federal money) is better than not working. Many a time people don't have a choice. Employment has been a very hard thing to attain for many people once they have been screwed by a company/organization.

The current "crisis" is the result of "altruistic" as opposed to "greedy" consumers buying things they did not need or afford. Buying more things that are not needed or affordable will not fix the "crisis."

Wrong. Buying things that you don't need is not a bad thing. Buying things you cannot afford is. Buying things you don't need includes all forms of entertainment, anything from the food and beverage that does not include a grocery store, gifts for those you love, etc. Buying things you don't necessarily need creates and maintains an economy. Buying things you can't afford is a bad thing. When credit is 'available' in today's world, it's really 'available.' But that is not to say that credit itself is not a bad thing. If credit wasn't available, our economy would hurt even more, especially the housing and automotive markets.

What needs to happen is this: Outsourcing needs to stop. Countries that are in debt to us need to pay up. And we need to pay up to countries we are in debt to.

Perhaps you will give us a website to explore this new economic theory

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.html

This one seems to really explain the process. I haven't read all of it, but will in due time. And this isn't a new economic theory, its just relatively unheard of. Interestingly enough though, a friend of mine said that he did a report on it in his economics class. It's a very interesting concept that does not shun profits, but places profit as a secondary priority. I'm sure it will be an interesting read for everyone here.