If the rantings of pwilley, "ElGauano & his BFF
Crossdresser" are an indication, sure looks that way. The 20th century started with GOP Teddy Roosevelt ( one of our greatest Presidents ) breaking up business monopolies that were thoroughly corrupting government. Child labor laws & those regulating workplace hours & safety ( after the 1911 Triangle shirtwaist fire, where
146 women died ) were enacted. To make sure monied interests weren't disproportionately represented at the ballot box, the public was given the right to vote for U.S. Senators & women & blacks were given the right to vote.
Governenment programs & insitutions such Departments of Commerce & Labor, Sherman Anti-trust act, FDIC, Social Security, Glass-Steagall ( part of which was repealed to disastrous effect in late 90's ) Medicare & other programs enacted to benefit the public good.
What these far righties want to do is repeal all these programs & go back to the massive business laden corruption of 18th century "Corporotocracy
gilded age" ( a sarcastic term coined by Mark Twain ).
Despite their moronic Ayn Rand "social Darwinism" protests to the contrary, NEVER gonna happen.
-- Modified on 11/13/2011 11:38:16 AM
take us back to the 12th century. The really liked the Dark Ages better.
I want the government to stop giving away tax money to those who contribute nothing. Period. If someone who contributes nothing needs a way to sustain their ability to survive, let the government manage a mechanism to connect them with jobs so that they can earn their keep and take care of their basic needs.
I do not suscribe to the concept of single moms making babies which they cannot support only to increase the level of government handouts they can collect. I do not suscribe to giving out foodstamps to those who refuse to work. I do not suscribe to a 15 trillion deficit so that 48% of the population can continue to pay no tax.
If the liberals feel so strongly about giving these folks a free ride, let it be done through the churches of the country, let em donate whatever they want to support these folks. Give em your spare bedroom to live in if you want. Be as benevolent as you care to be. But don't expect to gain any support from me if you want to force your kindness on me and others who don't care to be so "nice". Government has no place in taking money away from the workers to support the non workers. Federal income tax was created to sustain the countries infrastructure, war machine, and other material needs of the country at large. It was not intended to become a slush fund for politicians to purchase votes through handouts to those who would exchange their votes.
So, now, all you libs and others who would argue in favor of government handouts, knock yourself... liquidate your 401k, savings, homes and whatever wealth you may have and hand it out all you want. But leave me and my tax payments alone.
Your arguments PWilley are very so entertaining and precisely the reason why the conservative right can always count on you to vote against your own interest. In a perfect system, we all would like to have everyone work for the monies they receive from the public. I also believe that if given a chance, most people who receive aid would. But in our efforts to weed out every bit of corruption in our social network system, we have created an environment where it's advantageous for for people not to work. I have personally seen many cases where individuals were forced to quit working in order to receive healthcare for a sick family member, or even be eligible to receive food stamps. How insane is that, families being forced to give up everything in order to get a to get some help. And contrary to your belief, everyone pays some sort of tax, whether it be a income tax or sales tax. Everyone contributes, your argument is at what level they contribute.
You say we have a 15 trillion deficit because people refuse to work. I'd like to see some evidence of that. However, you won't find it because its not true. We have a 15 trillion deficit because we continue to allow the Bush Tax cuts to remain in effect, that we allow capital gains to be taxed differently from regular income, that we have participated in 2 wars and did not raise taxes to pay for them, that we reduced oversight of wall-street that we allowed them to play games with bad mortgages, derivatives and the like so that we had to bail the entire financial industry out in order to prevent financial collapse, that we don't have universal medical system so that we can actually control health care costs.
The things that you complain about are easy targets and are used by the conservative moment to hide the complexities of our economic system. It's easy to say that person on welfare is the cause of our fiscal woes, they have no one to fight for them. Middle class wages have remained stagnant since 1973. Our government has allowed entire industries to migrate overseas in order to get cheap labor and did nothing to create new industries to absorb the unemployed. We allowed govt's to engage in unfair trade practices against us because the the Americans public desire for cheap goods. We've failed to adequately protect the industries we do have, by enforcing tariffs against imports....I can go on and on.
I'm not naive enough to think that only the Republican party was solely responsible for this, Both parties have contributed greatly. But what I see today and what a majority or people think about the today's Republican party is this, they are not looking out for the interests of the middle class. You should really do some heavy thinking and look past all the rhetoric that the conservatives wrap around themselves and realized that the world is full of greys. Not everything is black and white.
I've attached a recent poll that shows that 69% of American believe that the Republican policies favor the rich. That is a pretty telling statement.
We do NOT have a 15 trillion dollar deficit. Let me repeat that slowly, so our board Michael Savage fan understands. We. Do. NOT. have. a. 15. trillion. dollar. deficit. Our deficit is actually an (estimated) 1.1 trillion.
We do have a 14.9 trillion dollar DEBT. However, our national debt had NEVER exceeded 1 trillion before Reagan cut top marginal income taxes for the rich from 70% to 28%. Since then, our national debt has increased steadily ever since.
You say he votes against his own interest.
That is the difference between a liberal and a conservative, a conservative strives to get into the upper class and will work hard for it, which is why he does not want the upper class unfairly targeted and taxed, because he plans to be one someday. Therefore he is not voting against his own interest at all. A liberal with a labor union mentality never strives to really break out of the pack and therefore realizes he will never be in the upper class.
You said "everyone pays some sort of tax, whether it be a income tax or sales tax." True, but wrong debate. We are talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!!
You say we have a deficit because of the Bush tax cuts, that's just B.S. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Check out the attached link, I know it will depress you but it is true, 1% of the people can not support the other 99%. Therefore, you tax cut argument goes down the crapper.
You talk about "playing games with bad mortgages". That is a fed issue, Freddie and Fannie urged on by liberal democrats like Barney Frank. When the people who legislate you tell you to make loans, you make loans. BTW, Bush tried to address the issue but liberal democrats blocked him.
You say "our government has allowed jobs to go overseas". B.S.!! That is a direct effect of the American consumer. Everyone bitches about Wal-Mart, but as soon as they open it, everyone shops there and no one asks where the stuff is made. Industries went over seas because consumers wanted quality products at cheaper prices. It was not the US government that did it, is was the 99% who currently Occupy Wall Street. How ironic...
Like I said, you would be a great FICTION writer, but its only fiction.
You're smart enough to come up with your own ideas and have your own conclusions without parroting Faux News.
But you're right. A conservative doesn't want to tax the rich because he's bought into the delusion that one day he'll be the top 1%. Hell, you've done that yourself, Snow. I'm sure you make a fine living for yourself, but you're not the top 1%. In fact, you're probably paying their tax burden.
Everyone does pay taxes. Most working stiffs pay more payroll taxes than income taxes. The only reason why they pay so much payroll taxes was to help fund giving the rich a 50% income tax cut.
We have a revenue problem and a spending problem, Snow. We particularly have a revenue problem, and don't make me post a graph to prove it. Top marginal income taxes have fallen from 94% to 35%. Capital Gains taxes have fallen from 35% to 15%. Corporate income tax rates have fallen from 50% to an effective 9% when they bother paying at all. Trade tariffs have been replaced with free trade. Tariffs funded 100% of US federal revenues from our Founding until the Civil War, and funded most of the gov't until the early 20th Century. We have a very serious revenue problem. The Bush tax cuts alone account for the majority of the entire deficit.
We have a spending problem too, particularly with all the welfare we're giving to the telecommunications, utilities, financial, and energy industries. Those industries, BTW, account for over half of all subsidies in the US tax code.
The purpose of progressive taxation isn't to put 99% on welfare and make the 1% pay for it. The purpose is to recirculate the wealth (which they've stolen). In the market, there is always a leader in any particular sector. And just like in the game of monopoly, the point is to control the whole board. Eventually, wealth becomes concentrated and does not circulate back into the economy. The 99% go broke, while the 1% roll around in their excrement like filthy pigs. If you recirculate the wealth, then it filters back into the economy, and allows more economic growth to occur.
That is why your average American is up to their necks in debt, and the economy is in the shitter. 30 years ago the rich got a 50% tax cut. Wealth has become concentrated. That is why we have a shortfall in demand.
This talking point about Barney Frank and Freddie and Fannie is utterly fucking retarded, and it needs to end. Glass Stegall was eliminated by the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 in a Republican congress. It marked the beginning of the housing bubble. Again, don't make me post a graph proving it. By the way, after it was passed, Phil Gramm went to work for UBS bank, and advising John McCain's presidential bid on economic matters. He proved such gems as calling Americans who had been thrown out of work in the middle of the worse finanical collapse since the Depression a bunch of "whiners".
Of course, our gov't has allowed jobs to go overseas. Free trade has it's consequences. It seems funny to me that I was the "young dumb kid" who "didn't know what he was talking about" when protesting the WTO 12 years ago, and people pissed and moaned about Starbucks windows. Funny, there's still plenty of Starbucks, and they all have windows, but somehow what those WTO protesters said WOULD happen DID happen. All the fucking jobs went overseas. Now even some conservatives are wondering where the jobs went. Get a clue.
-- Modified on 11/13/2011 9:50:31 PM
Here is a FAIR and BALANCED question for you.... (could not resist).
As long as there is a the type of tax code we have today, there will ALWAYS be loop holes. The people with money will ALWAYS be able to lobby and get exemptions added to the codes. There will ALWAYS be around the tax code, period.
So with this in mind and your desire for corporations to not have loopholes, and the wealthy to pay more, why would you NOT support the FAIR tax or a flat tax?
Sorry Willy, but if you can not support one of these based on what you said you believe in, then it just proves you are not a truly rational thinker, but just another "eat the rich" kool-aid drinker on the democratic plantation.
in which huge amounts of tax money is paid corporations. Some examples:
Ethanol, for which I pay twice. One with tax money then full price at the pump for gas which contains 10% ethanol.
Farm subsidies to ADM and the like.
There is food inflation across the world and we pay subsidies to farmers not to grow.
Why are the conservatives railing against huge tax payer dollars paid to corporations? Does this tax payer $ come from different money pool.
First cut out all the subsidies to corporations that doesn’t even pay taxes in most cases, then we should talk about welfare.
So, in essence conservatives are the ones not voting for their own interests, not liberals and independents.
If only you felt the same outrage about the trillions that corporations steal as you do about the crumbs that are redistributed to prevent blood in the streets, we might all be fooled into thinking you have a brain.
You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, because you are a low browed chimpanzee. Thanks to people like you, we are in the mess we are in.
By the way, you ape, did you notice that when the repubs has the house, the senate, the white house, and 6 of 9 SCOTUS appointees for SIX YEARS RUNNING, nothing was done about welfare, abortion, or any of the OTHER stuff they pretend to be against?
You fucking chimp, you clueless hump, you are nothing but a virus, designed to spew stupid.
The right wants to rein in some programs that it thinks may be out of balance, and you have them going back to poor houses and Dickens.
Find one serious figure on the left who wants to abolish child labor laws. Was that on the plank last time when the Dems said the right had taken over the GOP. I missed it.
There are some "work place" protections that hurt workers because business can't hire them. I could use a part time person, but I would need him to work at his place. Suddenly, I am liable for safety at his house. If his desk chair is not ergonomic, I pay. I was about to hire someone, but found out what was involved.
Likewise, I have a friend who represents workers in Workers' Comp. I asked him what percent was lingering and or fraud, and he said a horrific percent. He said if you cut out fraud you could triple the benifits for workers who were really hurt.
No, I dont' want to take hurt people and toss them of a funeral pyre or the poor house, but yes, I do want changes.
Funny, the side that wants to keep the system pretty much as it is is liberal and the party that wants reforms in that area is conservative. Go figure.
Crossdresser" are an indication, sure looks that way. The 20th century started with GOP Teddy Roosevelt ( one of our greatest Presidents ) breaking up business monopolies that were thoroughly corrupting government. Child labor laws & those regulating workplace hours & safety ( after the 1911 Triangle shirtwaist fire, where
146 women died ) were enacted. To make sure monied interests weren't disproportionately represented at the ballot box, the public was given the right to vote for U.S. Senators & women & blacks were given the right to vote.
Governenment programs & insitutions such Departments of Commerce & Labor, Sherman Anti-trust act, FDIC, Social Security, Glass-Steagall ( part of which was repealed to disastrous effect in late 90's ) Medicare & other programs enacted to benefit the public good.
What these far righties want to do is repeal all these programs & go back to the massive business laden corruption of 18th century "Corporotocracy
gilded age" ( a sarcastic term coined by Mark Twain ).
Despite their moronic Ayn Rand "social Darwinism" protests to the contrary, NEVER gonna happen.
-- Modified on 11/13/2011 11:38:16 AM
Phil, you said:
"Find one serious figure on the left who wants to abolish child labor laws. Was that on the plank last time when the Dems said the right had taken over the GOP. I missed it."
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm assuming you meant "one serious figure on the right", and it was simply a typo.
By the way, I assume that you'd consider Maine Republican Governor Paul LePage to be a serious figure in the Republican Party.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/01/981079/-Maines-LePage-signs-law-easing-child-labor-restriction
It seems strange to me, that you'd consider the outsourcing of your liability to harm your employees to be something that, well, harms your employees.
Yes, it was a typo. I mean the right. Sorry. My favorite quote of typos is "Typos are very important to all written form. It gives the reader something to look for so they aren't distracted by the total lack of content in your writing." Randy K. Milholland,
Thank you. That link proves my point. The OP was abolish all work place protections and return to Dickens. That proposal is to limit or ease. It is not abolish. It is not return to the type of labor law the OP was talking about.
In fact, it supports my point as well. Teenagers are entry level. They don't need the full batch of laws that some other workers do. Many are part time or summer jobs. I workd picking mellons in Central CA as a kid. Making entry level jobs more expensive to fill hurts the unemployed the most.
IIt isn't strange that I object to "outsourcing my liability" re injury to may employees. I just can't afford workers comp in CA, so I don't hire anyone. It is easier for me to type my own envelopes.
"Find one serious figure on the left who wants to abolish child labor laws. Was that on the plank last time when the Dems said the right had taken over the GOP. I missed it."
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm assuming you meant "one serious figure on the right", and it was simply a typo.
By the way, I assume that you'd consider Maine Republican Governor Paul LePage to be a serious figure in the Republican Party.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/01/981079/-Maines-LePage-signs-law-easing-child-labor-restriction
It seems strange to me, that you'd consider the outsourcing of your liability to harm your employees to be something that, well, harms your employees.
Phil, everyone screws up with the occassional typo. I certainly do all the time. I've always believed that if you can understand from context what someone is saying, then why be a typo nazi? In this case, I was just a little confused, and wanted clearification.
If typing envelopes is all you needed to have done, then why are you looking to hire someone? I know far too many lawyers in my office, and they all seem to have an attitude that each of them deserve a personal secretary. I imagine you already have a secretary, or at least an intern. They can't type envelops?
So you're saying that teenagers don't need the same labor laws as everyone else? So, if you're a teenager and you're injured on your job, you don't need worker's compensation because fuck it, you're a teenager? I was 19 years old working on a loading dock when I first injured my back. Not a day has passed since then that I don't have back pain. Sometimes it's minor pain, other times it's so intense that it's completely debilitating. I didn't take worker's comp.
I know every screws up, which is forgive all politicians, including Obama for stupid slips.
I didn't mean to offend you and am sorry if I did. I just like that quote as funny, and really did not mean it to be a reflection on people who catch my mistakes. It is more a reflection on me. I make more typos than any person I know. If they ever have an Academy award for dumb mistakes, I will get the Lifetime Achievement.
As to hiring. You took it too literally. I would need more than just envelopes. I could teach someone to do things like my simple motions - request for extension, augment record, and others. In 50 seconds I could tell some, "send the intro letter and add A, B, and C.
I don't have a secretary or interm. I know many of the top crim appeals attorrneys in CA, and many work out of the house with no support. I know at least six attorneys who do capital appeals and are 100% solo. No sectretary, or intern. FYI - go to the CA Supreme Court website and find qualification requirments for capital appellate attorneys in CA. Every one I know was on the highest level of non-capital cases - sex offenses, murder, torture, etc - before taking capital cases. No secretary or intern and all say it is for the same reason. It is easier to do it themselves rather that deal with the additional paperwork and crap
Again, you slide down that slope. I never said that seriously injured don't need help. I know young people can be injured. But many cases are lingering and cost the truly injured because of waste.
Buit teenagers don't need all the same protections. I SAID ALL. If a teen on a summer job gets fired wrongly, it isn't the same as a bread winner. Giving the same rights makes it harder to hire teens to start with. Also, while there are serious injuries, if the teen goes back to school after the summer, if that was his plan, he may need medical, but not lost wages if he had not been planning on working anyway in the fall.
THere are hudreds of examples of inefficiency and waste. Just because someon wants to lessen some protections doesn't mean he wants to return to poor houses and debtors prisons
Once again. Sorry. No offense intended
If typing envelopes is all you needed to have done, then why are you looking to hire someone? I know far too many lawyers in my office, and they all seem to have an attitude that each of them deserve a personal secretary. I imagine you already have a secretary, or at least an intern. They can't type envelops?
So you're saying that teenagers don't need the same labor laws as everyone else? So, if you're a teenager and you're injured on your job, you don't need worker's compensation because fuck it, you're a teenager? I was 19 years old working on a loading dock when I first injured my back. Not a day has passed since then that I don't have back pain. Sometimes it's minor pain, other times it's so intense that it's completely debilitating. I didn't take worker's comp.
Question: if you hired an unpaid intern, wouldn't it be affordable to go through the paperwork? Would interns still require the same worker's comp requirements?
I agree that a lot of bureaucratic red tape ought to be eliminated, even with what's needed to hire someone, but I imagine that red tape is there because of other people in your profession. A little ironic, I think.
I get what you're saying in regards to teens not being bread winners, but I think it's a slippery slope to have an unequal application of labor laws strictly for the young.
I agree with you in regards to unnecessary waste. I believe the Dodd Frank bill is several thousand pages long. That allows for a lot of loopholes, a lot of burdensome regulation, and requires hiring a legal expert just to make sure you're not breaking the law. Glass Stegal on the other hand I think was only 15 pages. I prefer the latter.
I won't want "unpaid." I don't mind paying, it's just that it can't be more burdensome than it is worth to me.
I am more that fully aware that the red tape is the fault of lawyers. That has been one of my grudges against the profession since my second day in law school.
I think evey law should have a 10 sunset provision. If it is working, it can be renewed. If it is not working, let it die.
What a moron.
You are a mental midget. Now go mental masturbate with yourself and your little "spawn" you created.
What a joke.
What a dope-------LOL !
Got a link to support your stupid conclusion there, you fucking useless mental midget.
The survey was directed at a target audience of mortgage holders and home owners.
It is more legit that any of the "poles" you smoke.
And how many respondents in those "poles" you love to smoke. And all of them were over the phone?
You just an expert on everything, aren't ya'. What an idiot.
Now go mental masturbate with your son.
Sick.
Lastly, moron, a link below to how legit. polls are conducted :
-- Modified on 11/14/2011 7:50:41 AM
Couldn't find a link to support your false argument once again, eh?
L O S E R. (typed slowly for you)
You really are a pathetic individual. I feel sorry for you and your lonely cyberspace existence.
Now, wipe the drool from your chin (or is that cum?) and listen carefully. I may be retarded but I know this: reputable polling is done by phone so basic verification can be done. Without such verification (i.e. on line) you have no idea who's voting, or how many times they've voted. Polls are error-prone enough when they're done by phone. On-line polls are so prone to error and outright manipulation they are worse than useless. Hmmm..."worse than useless" sounds like a good handle for you. Even a retard can see that.
-- Modified on 11/14/2011 10:53:11 AM
It took you this long to figure that out? You are now officially To Dumb To Post.
Is "crossdresser" dyslexic as well ?-----
It states how they conduct their polls. It says nothing of the validity of other forms of polling.
You are a useless idiot.
p.s is it hard to type with your son on your lap?
-- Modified on 11/14/2011 11:24:06 AM