PDA

View Full Version : Amending the Constitution



THoward
Tue Jan 8th, 2013, 02:02 PM
I don't care what side you are on, this is wrong. We need term limits.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjres15/text

Ezzzzy1
Tue Jan 8th, 2013, 02:33 PM
Yeah, so we can tear this country apart every 4 years :lol:

Elections have never been "nice" but im guessing they will only get worse. Id be happy going to an 8yr term. The only stipulation that I would suggest is that you have to be a property owner to vote like it was when this country was founded.


"given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses." Quote, "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," unquote. That's from Aristotle.

"The Founders of the United States shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown that all democracies" -- all democracies -- "as James Madison put it, are 'incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.' " That's why we have a republic and not a democracy. "Madison and others therefore made it a 'first' " -- 'cause this is a quote -- "first object of government," unquote, "to protect personal property from unjust confiscation."

Now, you see what happened with Kelo versus New London, and the confiscation of one American's property to give it to another private American based on the notion that the government making that decision will get more tax money from the second American than from the first.

This is one of the reasons why, in the original Constitution of the United States, it was only people who were landowners -- property owners were the ones who were allowed to vote. You couldn't vote unless you owned property. Now -- I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: "It's not fair, it's not the American way that you don't get to vote," but let me ask you a question: If I don't own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure -- a tax, a law -- that takes somebody else's property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership 'cause I don't have any.

Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote. I know you think this is anti-democratic. Well, actually it is anti-democratic because you don't want a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. You want a republic. Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end. But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited.

.

#1Townie
Tue Jan 8th, 2013, 03:06 PM
No. Not only no but hell fucking no. Maybe if the government actually did a good job i would think about it.

Here is a few simple ideas.

1. Term limitations in all memebers of congress. Same as presidency. No more lifetime benefits just because you made congress. After your time in congress your approval rating will matter. Anything over 80% gets them their lifetime benefits. If not too bad. This will make sure our government works for the people and not the corporations.

2. Cut government in half.



3. End the political parties. The UNITED states should not be divided into red/blue teams.

Zanatos
Tue Jan 8th, 2013, 07:15 PM
Republicans only need one Senator and one Representative since they always vote as a unanimous block anyway.

TinkerinWstuff
Tue Jan 8th, 2013, 07:53 PM
I once thought of term limits as a good thing.

the more i researched it, I realized it sucks.

If someone has no incentive to attempt to win another election, then they have no accountability to the voters. Thus, they can vote for their own special interest. Blame the idiots who keep putting the idiots back in office.

THoward
Tue Jan 8th, 2013, 10:12 PM
I agree with Townie.....we are in the mess we are in because Senators and Congressional people stay in office until they die. The President is the only check and balance in place right now. And the sheeple keep voting the idiots back in...wonder how they will feel after their first paycheck with more taxes being taken out? I voted for everyone NOT in office this last election....we just need to clean house.

TinkerinWstuff
Tue Jan 8th, 2013, 10:25 PM
Have you watched the news recently? Every pundit on every channel comments endlessly how Obama can do anything he wants as he doesn't have to worry about reelection. Even Obama commented himself to Russian President Putin about how he would have much more freedom after his reelection.

The founders looked at term limits during the founding of our country and decided it was a bad idea.

Clovis
Tue Jan 8th, 2013, 11:17 PM
I agree with the original law that required land ownership to vote. I wold settle for a requirement of being a federal tax payer as a requirement to vote In Federal elections.

Everyone who votes should have some skin in the game.

Zanatos
Thu Jan 10th, 2013, 08:20 AM
I agree. Screw the poor. If they can't even buy land, then they don't deserve representation.

We should also bring back debtors prisons.

TinkerinWstuff
Thu Jan 10th, 2013, 08:35 AM
sarcasm is a fantastic way to have an adult conversation about growd up issues.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23970424.jpg

asp_125
Thu Jan 10th, 2013, 08:39 AM
I say we go back to having a dictatorship where the person at the top can .............. oh wait.

Clovis
Thu Jan 10th, 2013, 07:45 PM
I agree. Screw the poor. If they can't even buy land, then they don't deserve representation.

We should also bring back debtors prisons.

Whats wrong with requiring skin in the game in order to vote how the game is played?

The whole point of requiring land ownership to vote was the preserve private property by limiting one group from voting themselves the private property of others. Theft through democracy.

Wealth redistribution is legalized theft of private party. Exactly what our founders wanted to prevent.

laspariahs
Thu Jan 10th, 2013, 08:00 PM
Whats wrong with requiring skin in the game in order to vote how the game is played?


Well you can dream all you want, but it'll never happen.

Zanatos
Thu Jan 10th, 2013, 08:05 PM
I think all American citizens have skin in the game by virtue of living in the United States, paying taxes, and participating in the political process.

I can't support the idea that someone who makes a six-figure salary shouldn't be allowed to vote just because he or she has chosen to not buy real estate.

Hoot
Thu Jan 10th, 2013, 08:05 PM
Paying taxes is the new way of requiring skin in the game.

Taxation without representation anyone?

When land ownership was required to vote, there was no income taxation.

Clovis
Thu Jan 10th, 2013, 10:22 PM
I think all American citizens have skin in the game by virtue of living in the United States, paying taxes, and participating in the political process.

I can't support the idea that someone who makes a six-figure salary shouldn't be allowed to vote just because he or she has chosen to not buy real estate.

I heard that some 47% of Americans don't pay taxes.

Paying taxes is the modern version of land ownership. It's all about having skin in the game.

Wrider
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 03:17 AM
You want the real way to get rid of the red vs blue bullshit?

Get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, even if you don't like either, most vote for the least disliked versus who they really want to vote for. Get rid of the electoral college and people can vote in someone they actually like...

#1Townie
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 06:14 AM
You want the real way to get rid of the red vs blue bullshit?

Get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, even if you don't like either, most vote for the least disliked versus who they really want to vote for. Get rid of the electoral college and people can vote in someone they actually like...

That there is the cycle we are stuck in. We will never do away with the college until we get enough of congress back on our side. If we want these things the only way it will happen is if the people come together as one. If we can do that we do away with the teams. We do away with that we can create a real change. Until then we are stuck.

dirkterrell
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 07:47 AM
You want the real way to get rid of the red vs blue bullshit?

Get rid of the electoral college. As it stands, even if you don't like either, most vote for the least disliked versus who they really want to vote for. Get rid of the electoral college and people can vote in someone they actually like...

Do you understand why the electoral college was implemented? The Founders had studied previous instances of democratic governments and understood the weaknesses, and eventual failures, of democracies. That is why we have a republic of individual states.

Wrider
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 08:10 AM
Do you understand why the electoral college was implemented? The Founders had studied previous instances of democratic governments and understood the weaknesses, and eventual failures, of democracies. That is why we have a republic of individual states.

I understand why, but it's also the main problem with today's election system IMO. It sticks us with choosing dumb or dumber, and the worst part is that you don't know who's who.

dirkterrell
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 08:43 AM
I understand why, but it's also the main problem with today's election system IMO. It sticks us with choosing dumb or dumber, and the worst part is that you don't know who's who.

I'd be curious to see an explanation of why you think that.

Wrider
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 09:10 AM
I see it this way...
Say there's main party A, main party B, and the non-main party candidate that I actually like is candidate C.

Under the current system, if I really didn't like A, disliked B, and wanted to vote C, it wouldn't make sense to vote C. You could vote C, but all that would do is take a "cancelling vote" away from B, which, in effect, adds to A's votes. It's pretty much useless because if A wins more than B or C, A gets all of your state's electoral college votes. Now say A won 51% in a state, that's all of that state's electoral votes going for him.

In a popular vote, you wouldn't feel the need to "cancel out" someone else's vote for A by voting for B, you could simply vote for C, which would not only take away votes from both A and B main parties, but allow people to vote for who they really wanted to vote for; allowing a truer cross-section of the vote to be represented. It might even be enough to actually get a third party elected, one that won't vote strictly party lines, and will actually have the people's best interest in mind.

Not sure if I'm explaining this properly. If it doesn't make sense, I'll come back and try again after I sleep for the day.

Like I said I do understand why the electoral college system came into place, but like is mentioned in several pages about the history of it I found, it was intended for a system in which candidates don't run national campaigns, to keep people from "voting for the home-field advantage", with every state voting only for their candidate.

#1Townie
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 09:25 AM
Yeah youre saying either i vote for a or b or else im wasting my vote. If we as a people could get away from that mindset and actually vote for c c should win. Again if true change is wanted we have to start with ourselves. Sure the votes dont have to go for who we vote but then we fire the assholes who went against our wishes. If you really think about it our government is only screwed up because we allowed it to happen.

dirkterrell
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 09:45 AM
I see it this way...
Now say A won 51% in a state, that's all of that state's electoral votes going for him.


But that isn't mandated constitutionally. How a state's electoral votes are decided is left up to the individual states. In fact, two states don't have the winner-take-all approach.



Like I said I do understand why the electoral college system came into place, but like is mentioned in several pages about the history of it I found, it was intended for a system in which candidates don't run national campaigns, to keep people from "voting for the home-field advantage", with every state voting only for their candidate.

There were two main reasons why the Founders went with the electoral system: concern that the population could be too easily manipulated by a potential tyrant and giving smaller states a bigger voice in national affairs (another example of the concern about the tyranny of a majority). For the former, for example, Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68:


It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Tipys
Fri Jan 11th, 2013, 10:53 PM
The only stipulation that I would suggest is that you have to be a property owner to vote like it was when this country was founded.



.

So should women not be aloud to vote either? Cause they couldn't vote when this country was founded.

As for just the simple fact between property owner and non property owner. Just because you are a property owner doesn't mean you have any more invested in this country then the non property owners.

Ezzzzy1
Sat Jan 12th, 2013, 07:32 AM
So should women not be aloud to vote either? Cause they couldn't vote when this country was founded.

Yes women cant vote, neither can black people. Everyone must use muskets and wear feathers in their hats too. :roll:



As for just the simple fact between property owner and non property owner. Just because you are a property owner doesn't mean you have any more invested in this country then the non property owners.

If you want to argue with the philosophy of Aristotle then go ahead.

Wrider
Sat Jan 12th, 2013, 09:45 AM
So because I don't own property I shouldn't be able to vote?

Interesting... What about those that live in an apartment because they're saving up for a house?

What about those that bought houses because they were told they could afford it but were too dumb to check their own finances and are now in extreme trouble?

How about those that could easily afford a house, bought one, but lost their job through no fault of their own, and have been foreclosed on?

How about those that have been robo-signed on foreclosure, even though they paid for their house in cash?

How about those whose name is not on the deed/title, yet are making payments?

#1Townie
Sat Jan 12th, 2013, 09:58 AM
So because I don't own property I shouldn't be able to vote?

Interesting... What about those that live in an apartment because they're saving up for a house?

What about those that bought houses because they were told they could afford it but were too dumb to check their own finances and are now in extreme trouble?

How about those that could easily afford a house, bought one, but lost their job through no fault of their own, and have been foreclosed on?

How about those that have been robo-signed on foreclosure, even though they paid for their house in cash?

How about those whose name is not on the deed/title, yet are making payments?


Nope only the rich should be allowed to vote. The rest of us are too dumb. If you are still making payments on a home you dont own it, the bank does.

Wrider
Sat Jan 12th, 2013, 10:13 AM
Nope only the rich should be allowed to vote. The rest of us are too dumb. If you are still making payments on a home you dont own it, the bank does.

Well in that case the bank ought to pay the property taxes and maintenance costs...

#1Townie
Sat Jan 12th, 2013, 11:20 AM
You're right they should. Same thing with cars.

Zanatos
Sat Jan 12th, 2013, 07:46 PM
Why do conservatives act like half the country is comprised of lazy freeloaders?

The law does not require the bottom 47% of income earners to pay federal income taxes - however ...

"Low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007. The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes."

Source: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Wrider
Sat Jan 12th, 2013, 08:40 PM
I paid 11.54% in Federal taxes.
I paid 1.5% in Medicare taxes.
I paid 3.8% in State taxes.
I paid 4.5% in Social Security taxes.

That's 21.34% total in just taxes.

Personally I think that's way too high for several reasons.
1. It doesn't take into account vehicle registrations, sales tax, etc.
2. I'm paying 4.2% (6.2% this year) for social security, which, at my age and the way it's going, I'll never see a cent of.
3. I've never used Medicare, yet I have to pay for it AND my own medical, bringing the total to 5.7% of my paycheck.

So overall I'm paying 21.34% of my check to taxes BEFORE I get to cover my own costs such as health care, dental, vision, 401(k), etc. But wait, there's more! This year we're paying another 2% into Social Security so it'll be a total of 23.34% of my paycheck gone before I can even start to cover my own expenses and needs.

And for what it's worth, I am well within the 2nd to bottom 1/5.

I know it's not a lot compared to the higher echelons, but there's something seriously wrong with that IMHO.

Clovis
Sat Jan 12th, 2013, 10:26 PM
I'm paid on a commission basis. On my commission checks (once per month) my tax withholding breaks down like this:


25% in Federal Income Tax
4.63% in CO state income tax
1.45% in Medicare
6.2% in social security

37.28% if my paycheck goes to taxes.


Not reflected is the employer paid portions of social security and medicare, which is the same as the employee paid portion, another 7.65%

44.93% of my income goes to taxes, right off the paycheck.

The 7.65 employer paid portion of taxes is part of my overall compensation or cost of employment.

Factor in another 7.63% in sales tax (Colorado Springs 2013 rate), which is paid with after-tax dollars and it's painfully obvious that over 50% of my earnings goes to tax.

Not included would be property tax which is not a percentage of income but rather the assessed value of my home.

Do I pay enough taxes yet? Yes
Am I wealthy or the hated 1%? Hell no, I'm decisively middle-class.

I'm in the top 10% of earnings and I work 60-70 hours per week. Heck, the Friday before New Years I was at work from 10:00am to 3:30am... That's my personal longest day but typically I'm in the office until 7-8pm and until midnight at least once per month.

So when I vote, I generally vote no on tax increases and vote for the candidates that pledge to lower taxes, yet my vote is negated by those who vote yes on tax increases yet pay no or very little in taxes and benefit from the tax increases.

To answer Zanatos's question about why conservatives think the bottom 47% are tax payers are freeloaders...

It's not the 47% but it probably is more like the bottom 27% -- The military serving in combat and the elderly are both statistically in the 47% group but I wouldn't call them freeloaders.

But, take my wife for example. She works as a tech support / customer service rep for a local cable company that's primarily based in several democratic stats. Michigan and Illinois come to mind.

The running joke is that callers/customers from those states call in to demand their free 5 day payment extension or set up payments around their unemployment, disability or other government welfare checks.

I consider cable TV, especially the premium packages this group has to be a luxury yet to them it's a right. I certainly wouldn't have cable if I was on unemployment, in fact I don't have cable or Satellite TV now.

Ultimately a group that contributes nothing or very little is able to demand more and more from the group that pays for everything. Another interesting statistic is that the more a person pays into taxes, the less benefit they receive while a person who pays very little to nothing receives a disproportionate amount of government services, at the expense of the top half.

That is not American in my opinion. Everyone should pull their own weight and have skin in the game.

Zanatos
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 01:08 PM
If you were low-income and TV was your sole source of entertainment, recreation, relaxation, information about the world - you might consider it to be more of a necessity.

When people have little to no discretionary income and nothing to occupy their minds or their time, it is very easy for them to become miserable, depressed, and suicidal - or even worse - bitter and homicidal.

Wrider
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 01:28 PM
If you were low-income and TV was your sole source of entertainment, recreation, relaxation, information about the world - you might consider it to be more of a necessity.

When people have little to no discretionary income and nothing to occupy their minds or their time, it is very easy for them to become miserable, depressed, and suicidal - or even worse - bitter and homicidal.

In my experience living on 40-120/week (keep in mind 10 miles each way to school 5 days a week when gas was 4.50/gallon), after rent, the internet is much more useful. I sold my TV, lived on really really cheap food, and used the internet for all of that.

Hoot
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 02:06 PM
If you were low-income and TV was your sole source of entertainment, recreation, relaxation, information about the world - you might consider it to be more of a necessity.

When people have little to no discretionary income and nothing to occupy their minds or their time, it is very easy for them to become miserable, depressed, and suicidal - or even worse - bitter and homicidal.

It's not your sole source of entertainment. It is a luxury. Take a walk or get a book from the library or any other number of free activities. It's this type of reasoning that is poisoning our society. We shouldn't hold them accountable for their luxury bill because they might not be able to handle it and become miserable? Seriously?

We have survived as a species for far too long without these things. It is simply a mindset of entitlement.

I work, I make money, I budget my money making choices of what I can and cannot afford. It's not a hard process of you're not a member of congress.

Tipys
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 02:15 PM
I'm paid on a commission basis. On my commission checks (once per month) my tax withholding breaks down like this:


25% in Federal Income Tax
4.63% in CO state income tax
1.45% in Medicare
6.2% in social security

37.28% if my paycheck goes to taxes.


Not reflected is the employer paid portions of social security and medicare, which is the same as the employee paid portion, another 7.65%

44.93% of my income goes to taxes, right off the paycheck.

The 7.65 employer paid portion of taxes is part of my overall compensation or cost of employment.

Factor in another 7.63% in sales tax (Colorado Springs 2013 rate), which is paid with after-tax dollars and it's painfully obvious that over 50% of my earnings goes to tax.

Not included would be property tax which is not a percentage of income but rather the assessed value of my home.

Do I pay enough taxes yet? Yes
Am I wealthy or the hated 1%? Hell no, I'm decisively middle-class.

I'm in the top 10% of earnings and I work 60-70 hours per week. Heck, the Friday before New Years I was at work from 10:00am to 3:30am... That's my personal longest day but typically I'm in the office until 7-8pm and until midnight at least once per month.

So when I vote, I generally vote no on tax increases and vote for the candidates that pledge to lower taxes, yet my vote is negated by those who vote yes on tax increases yet pay no or very little in taxes and benefit from the tax increases.

To answer Zanatos's question about why conservatives think the bottom 47% are tax payers are freeloaders...

It's not the 47% but it probably is more like the bottom 27% -- The military serving in combat and the elderly are both statistically in the 47% group but I wouldn't call them freeloaders.

That is not American in my opinion. Everyone should pull their own weight and have skin in the game.

So because your EMPLOYER pays 7 percent that some how raise the amount of taxes you personal pay? Because it does not.

Also not everything you buy has sale tax. Also correct me if I am wrong but don't you live in Fountain? Which has a lower sales tax. Either way again another incorrect statement in your math because not everything has sale tax.

Also how much you claim effects how much comes out. So another question how much do you get back from your income tax return?

Maybe you should do ALL the math before you claim to having 50 percent of your income go to taxes. But you probably won't because you already think the government is stealing all your money and unless your military or elderly your a free loader if you fall into that 47percent.

#1Townie
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 04:33 PM
What doesnt have sales tax?

dirkterrell
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 04:40 PM
So because your EMPLOYER pays 7 percent that some how raise the amount of taxes you personal pay? Because it does not.


And if you think that expense isn't figured into the salary you are paid, you are mistaken. Clovis may be self-employed, in which case you do pay the "employer's" portion of FICA.

Wrider
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 04:51 PM
What doesnt have sales tax?

Oregon.

Ezzzzy1
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 04:52 PM
What doesnt have sales tax?

Not a whole lot of things. Most commonly would probably be internet purchases that are made out of state. The Government has yet to get us there but the push is always on.

Other than that I cant really think of anything else.

Tipsy just because something doesnt say that tax is being charged doesnt mean that its not being paid (by the retailer/seller). Often people (smaller business) include sales tax as part of the purchase price.

Hoot
Sun Jan 13th, 2013, 06:14 PM
Food generally doesn't get taxed. I'm talking food you prepare, not at a restaurant. There are some things that are taxed at lesser rate, I can only remember sugar tax. Sales tax goes to a local municipality not state or fed, but it is post federal and state taxes that's what really sucks about it.

Tipys
Wed Jan 16th, 2013, 09:21 AM
And if you think that expense isn't figured into the salary you are paid, you are mistaken. Clovis may be self-employed, in which case you do pay the "employer's" portion of FICA.


And you seem to think if the employer didn't have to pay that tax they would pay you more? Some companies yes most probably not.


Either way my point is. The way his math is done he out of his personal income is not taxed 50 percent.

Think what you want most do anyway. But if your going to complain about taxes even if your getting taxed 2 percent or 80 percent you should probably be aware of the real amount your being taxed. Not how bad you can try to make it sound on paper.

dirkterrell
Wed Jan 16th, 2013, 09:31 AM
And you seem to think if the employer didn't have to pay that tax they would pay you more? Some companies yes most probably not.


And who would you choose to work for?

TinkerinWstuff
Wed Jan 16th, 2013, 01:45 PM
And you seem to think if the employer didn't have to pay that tax they would pay you more? Some companies yes most probably not.



no, they would pay whatever the going rate is for the labor they needed dictated by the availability of said labor in a competitive labor force.

If the employer didn't have to pay that tax tomorrow, it would lower their overhead costs and allow them to undercut their competition to win more business. Until the competition realized they were losing orders and had to cut their costs too or go out of business.

It would very likely lower costs of goods and services to the consumer through competition.

Wrider
Wed Jan 16th, 2013, 04:57 PM
In support of this thread, I refer you to Atmel, a cleanroom production facility located in Colorado Springs. In December they laid off 40 of about 400 employees. Yesterday, they laid off another 150-200, with another 200 planned for when they get all of their machines down and moved overseas.

TinkerinWstuff
Wed Jan 16th, 2013, 05:09 PM
In support of this thread, I refer you to Atmel, a cleanroom production facility located in Colorado Springs. In December they laid off 40 of about 400 employees. Yesterday, they laid off another 150-200, with another 200 planned for when they get all of their machines down and moved overseas.

that's fucking sad :no:

but every time our government forces expenses on the employer in a global economy, more Americans will continue to lose their jobs.

interesting video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138922n

Zanatos
Wed Jan 16th, 2013, 09:07 PM
If America would stop being the World Police, we would have the smallest debt of any nation on the planet.

TinkerinWstuff
Wed Jan 16th, 2013, 09:13 PM
If America would stop being the World Police, we would have the smallest debt of any nation on the planet.

yea no kidding. while we're at it, I hate that my tax dollars pay for the cop to patrol the nasty neighborhood - I don't have a problem at my house, why should I pay for the cop to troll the trailer park?

#1Townie
Wed Jan 16th, 2013, 09:21 PM
If America would stop being the World Police, we would have the smallest debt of any nation on the planet.

No our government would find other ways to blow our money.

#3 If you can believe it, the U.S. government has spent $175,587 “to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior”.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-stupid-things-the-governemnt-is-spending-money-on

Tipys
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 06:58 PM
In support of this thread, I refer you to Atmel, a cleanroom production facility located in Colorado Springs. In December they laid off 40 of about 400 employees. Yesterday, they laid off another 150-200, with another 200 planned for when they get all of their machines down and moved overseas.


that's fucking sad :no:

but every time our government forces expenses on the employer in a global economy, more Americans will continue to lose their jobs.

interesting video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138922n


That is sad. Unlike many in this thread and on this board. I do not blame the government. Companies have been shipping jobs over seas for years. Why? Usually because the can pay there employees less and pocket more money.

Its all a greed factor at the end of the day.

#1Townie
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 07:01 PM
Its greed to want your company to profit the best it can?

Hoot
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 07:12 PM
Or own stock in any companies? They have had to come up with new ways to show continuing growth and profitability in order to push stock prices etc.

Ezzzzy1
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 07:18 PM
Its greed to want your company to profit the best it can?

If its at the cost of American jobs? Most would say yes.

There is often a overlooked element in a lot of these threads and its called morality. While some could argue that there is nothing wrong with wanting your company to make as much profit as possible there is a moral approach that generally yields more stability and longevity. Part of the reason so many companies fail is because of their practices. Period, and while most of these people would blame it on something else (because they dont either know how to or want to except responsibility) it generally is their own fault. For what its worth, "greed" is probably more responsible for companies failures than any other element.

TinkerinWstuff
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 07:24 PM
That is sad. Unlike many in this thread and on this board. I do not blame the government. Companies have been shipping jobs over seas for years. Why? Usually because the can pay there employees less and pocket more money.

Its all a greed factor at the end of the day.


If its at the cost of American jobs? Most would say yes.

There is often a overlooked element in a lot of these threads and its called morality. While some could argue that there is nothing wrong with wanting your company to make as much profit as possible there is a moral approach that generally yields more stability and longevity. Part of the reason so many companies fail is because of their practices. Period, and while most of these people would blame it on something else (because they dont either know how to or want to except responsibility) it generally is their own fault. For what its worth, "greed" is probably more responsible for companies failures than any other element.

Do you buy the lowest cost product you can find that suits your needs?

greedy fuckers

Ezzzzy1
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 07:39 PM
Do you buy the lowest cost product you can find that suits your needs?

greedy fuckers

Actually I dont. fucker.

I pay more to keep as many things local as possible, that and to meet my own quality standards. Im not cheap. Im not looking to make the most amount of money that I can make. I want sound businesses that are built the correct way. I dont cut corners and purposely take the harder paths sometimes knowing that the company is rewarded by stability.

You of all people.... You have an eye for quality and probably own more "things" that are made by people that feel the same way I do about running companies so that their product is the best it can be. To me that the most important part of my companies. Second is service.

TinkerinWstuff
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 07:45 PM
Actually I dont. fucker.


Figures that you'd be first to chime in. I find it comical how many people who are quick to point the finger at the big bad corporation are the same cheap bastards who internet shop the lowest price or stand in line at the Walmart Black Friday line.

#1Townie
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 07:56 PM
Wheres my popcorn.

Ezzzzy1
Thu Jan 17th, 2013, 07:56 PM
Figures that you'd be first to chime in. I find it comical how many people who are quick to point the finger at the big bad corporation are the same cheap bastards who internet shop the lowest price or stand in line at the Walmart Black Friday line.

Just happened to be on the thread still....

Its absolutely if frustrating. How can you argue with someone that wants to spend less for the same thing? You cant, they simply dont get it. More than anything I get good value with the products that I buy and who I buy them from. Meaning that I definitely get my moneys worth if there is a problem or I need to make changes, but I insist on only working (generally speaking) with other companies that work the same way I do. Essentially I am paying more to save time on problems 1 not happening in the first place and 2 after they happen them just being resolved instantly.

I dont expect many people to understand but its not hard to see who owns good companies that genuinely care about its customers vs. companies that only care about money. The funny thing is the ones that are run correctly end up being around longer and in the long run make more and are worth more.

One more thought... Not all but a good chunk of the guys that you see with their Ferraris and big houses have figured out how to make the system work for them in the short term but if there ever came a day to sell their company are they had a serious audit it would be obvious that they have only been running their company incorrectly for personal gain.

CYCLE_MONKEY
Mon Mar 4th, 2013, 05:26 PM
No. Not only no but hell fucking no. Maybe if the government actually did a good job i would think about it.

Here is a few simple ideas.

1. Term limitations in all memebers of congress. Same as presidency. No more lifetime benefits just because you made congress. After your time in congress your approval rating will matter. Anything over 80% gets them their lifetime benefits. If not too bad. This will make sure our government works for the people and not the corporations.

2. Cut government in half.



3. End the political parties. The UNITED states should not be divided into red/blue teams.
Wow, common sense AND punctuation in the same post from Townie???:applause::p