Obama the Post Turtle

[Mandalore]

Fixed, MD.

Edit:
Let me see if I've got my Republican dogma knowledge right

Socially: Ban gay marriage and make us a theocracy again, after all it's not like the top ten nations to live in are highly secular and tolerant.

Economically: Poor people, deal with the [poo] we kick down the line to you. Also, you must accept the blame even though we control production. We should probably cut back on social programs too, now that we have less tax revenue since shifting our manufacturing base over seas.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

It's a nice [m'kay] principle Dread, I'll give you that.

But here's the difference between India and the United States. Cost of living. An Indian can get by making $15 a day. In the United States, you can not. So you pull your head out of your ass. Also, how the hell are you blaming the poor/middle class of the developed world when the means of production are controlled primarily by the aristocrats (read:wealthy). Also, if you were going to use the term poor in a clearly defined manner instead of a colloquial one, you should have invoked the use of the poverty line. How you can compare wages and SOls between a nation that has been industrialized for nearly a century and one that is still developing is beyond me when you say that we (the industrialized nation) should accept wages that would make it impossible for them to live in the current economic situation. If your goal is to turn America into a developing country, go ahead, you and your ilk are well on their [m'kay] way to making that happen. Essentially what you're saying is that the ultimate maximization of profits is preferable even when it ultimately ruins the economic system of a nation. It's this sort of short sightedness that ultimately leads to the economic ruin of nations.

The case you mention is exactly the argument I'm using. In India there is opportunity for the poor. In America, there is not. And the system you describe is primarily the reasoning behind this. In India, having a degree from Purdue will put you on top, in America it makes you normal. He can afford to take out that 60k loan because in India he will soon be a millionaire. All because the means of production held by the wealthy have shifted their focus off of domestic labor and onto foreign labor, all for the ever mighty dollar.

And MD, since you talk such a big talk buddy, I really want to see you survive on .25 an hour. Assuming a 40 hour work week and that you work 52 weeks a year, that's $520 to support your family. Do it without welfare too, you big strapping ideological warrior you!

PAY ATTENTION!! You live in a world that HAS to compare industrialized nations and developing ones. THEY COMPETE FOR CAPITAL!! Without capital you have stagnation and decay. I don't care if you can't live on $15 a day. Neither do you. If you did you wouldn't buy 75% of the items in your house. You buy them because you need them and because you can. DVD players are $30 cause the guys who make them get paid so little. They get by without things like an FDA, EPA, OSHA, DNR, DMV, Multi-Branch Civilian led Military, SEC, FCC, Medicare, Social Security, Public Education, Fire Department, Water Department, Zoning Department, Public Library, Public parks, Public Transportation, Highways, Sewers and sanitation, Head-Start, No-Child Left Behind, DARPA, NOA, NASA, USGS and on and on...and all the (honestly) wonderful things they bring with it.

IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE!!

The wealthy aren't bringing the economy down. It's idiots who don't understand you can't get something for nothing (ie the people who time and again vote for politicians who say that you can) who are bringing it down. When we started globalization in the 70's it was a small problem. Some say spurred by an American worker who took quality and hard work for granted. Foreign manufactured goods gained a foothold in our market place. As long as a consumer WOULD buy a product of equal or better quality from somewhere else for a lower price, it then necessarily followed that they should. (not the reverse)

The net effect is, we've been putting more money out then we get in. That can't last forever. That is where we are. Businesses can't hire American workers to make anything. No one will buy the more expensive product from home just because it comes from their neighbor. A business can't survive if no one buys its products.

Globalization as it is now will level the economies to an average. Ours is at the top and has a long way to fall to get to the middle (average) where it will meet developing economies. No one in America wants that, but it is the road we are on. The solution is almost as painful. But the pain will only increase the longer we wait to return to sensible economics. Like a gangrenous limb, the longer you wait, the deeper and more you must cut away to save the patient.

AND BTW YOU CHILDISH IGNORANT ASS (Mandalore) People DO live on that little and even less. MILLIONS. Are they better than MD or me or you? No, they just have to. Just saying that shows you have NO idea what it is to be a Man. A Man will live on that or less and raise his family too, because that's what he HAS to do and he can be proud for doing it. If that were his lot in life I'm sure that MD, WD Jammy and even MC would make it work. REAL Men man-up and get it done. Fathers all, we know it's not a er of choice.

[Mandalore]

It's a nice [m'kay] principle Dread, I'll give you that.

But here's the difference between India and the United States. Cost of living. An Indian can get by making $15 a day. In the United States, you can not. So you pull your head out of your ass. Also, how the hell are you blaming the poor/middle class of the developed world when the means of production are controlled primarily by the aristocrats (read:wealthy). Also, if you were going to use the term poor in a clearly defined manner instead of a colloquial one, you should have invoked the use of the poverty line. How you can compare wages and SOls between a nation that has been industrialized for nearly a century and one that is still developing is beyond me when you say that we (the industrialized nation) should accept wages that would make it impossible for them to live in the current economic situation. If your goal is to turn America into a developing country, go ahead, you and your ilk are well on their [m'kay] way to making that happen. Essentially what you're saying is that the ultimate maximization of profits is preferable even when it ultimately ruins the economic system of a nation. It's this sort of short sightedness that ultimately leads to the economic ruin of nations.

The case you mention is exactly the argument I'm using. In India there is opportunity for the poor. In America, there is not. And the system you describe is primarily the reasoning behind this. In India, having a degree from Purdue will put you on top, in America it makes you normal. He can afford to take out that 60k loan because in India he will soon be a millionaire. All because the means of production held by the wealthy have shifted their focus off of domestic labor and onto foreign labor, all for the ever mighty dollar.

And MD, since you talk such a big talk buddy, I really want to see you survive on .25 an hour. Assuming a 40 hour work week and that you work 52 weeks a year, that's $520 to support your family. Do it without welfare too, you big strapping ideological warrior you!

PAY ATTENTION!! You live in a world that HAS to compare industrialized nations and developing ones. THEY COMPETE FOR CAPITAL!! Without capital you have stagnation and decay. I don't care if you can't live on $15 a day. Neither do you. If you did you wouldn't buy 75% of the items in your house. You buy them because you need them and because you can. DVD players are $30 cause the guys who make them get paid so little. They get by without things like an FDA, EPA, OSHA, DNR, DMV, Multi-Branch Civilian led Military, SEC, FCC, Medicare, Social Security, Public Education, Fire Department, Water Department, Zoning Department, Public Library, Public parks, Public Transportation, Highways, Sewers and sanitation, Head-Start, No-Child Left Behind, DARPA, NOA, NASA, USGS and on and on...and all the (honestly) wonderful things they bring with it.

IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE!!

The wealthy aren't bringing the economy down. It's idiots who don't understand you can't get something for nothing (ie the people who time and again vote for politicians who say that you can) who are bringing it down. When we started globalization in the 70's it was a small problem. Some say spurred by an American worker who took quality and hard work for granted. Foreign manufactured goods gained a foothold in our market place. As long as a consumer WOULD buy a product of equal or better quality from somewhere else for a lower price, it then necessarily followed that they should. (not the reverse)

The net effect is, we've been putting more money out then we get in. That can't last forever. That is where we are. Businesses can't hire American workers to make anything. No one will buy the more expensive product from home just because it comes from their neighbor. A business can't survive if no one buys its products.

Globalization as it is now will level the economies to an average. Ours is at the top and has a long way to fall to get to the middle (average) where it will meet developing economies. No one in America wants that, but it is the road we are on. The solution is almost as painful. But the pain will only increase the longer we wait to return to sensible economics. Like a gangrenous limb, the longer you wait, the deeper and more you must cut away to save the patient.

AND BTW YOU CHILDISH IGNORANT ASS (Mandalore) People DO live on that little and even less. MILLIONS. Are they better than MD or me or you? No, they just have to. Just saying that shows you have NO idea what it is to be a Man. A Man will live on that or less and raise his family too, because that's what he HAS to do and he can be proud for doing it. If that were his lot in life I'm sure that MD, WD Jammy and even MC would make it work. REAL Men man-up and get it done. Fathers all, we know it's not a er of choice.

Why do you continue to fight a point that was never contested? I have not contested that in the area of costs that industrialized and developing countries are no doubt competing. I have contested that to compare what they make in sweat shops and their SOL can not be compared to the standard wages and SOL in America. (Or the other industrialized nations). Globalization is the phenomenon of corporations making maximum profit through any means necessary, and while it's both real and inevitable, as to whether it is a moral development within human society I can not say. Whether there are methods of staunching the flow of outward manufacturing base or not, I can not say.

What is it to be a man, almighty Dreadnaught? Surely you have the answers. You do not. To be a man is to be born with the male genitalia. Whether or not you accept social stigma associated with said genitalia is your choice. To say that you're truly living on $15 a day within the United States is another debatable item, I would say not, given that that's roughly $4500 per year, and the poverty line is set at $22,000 (for a family of four). Without welfare, their chances of any social mobility are very slim, and even with welfare, they are still very slim. To live in a society which has little social mobility is to essentially be chained into slavery.

At this point, I honestly don't remember what we were talking about in the first place.

Edit: Trying to condense my points into something a bit more coherent here...

My point was that there's actually quite a good bit of opportunity in these developing countries for people with a good education where as that opportunity isn't as great for those of us in industrialized countries comparatively.

And that these developing countries are essentially neo-mercantilists but the industrialized world is still going on the basis of free trade, which hurts us.Case in point being the PRC artificially keeping their currency valued low so that their labor is very cheap. I understand that overall, globalization is actually probably a good thing (especially once it hits its peak) but at the same time, we need to protect our own domestic economy.

[Duel of Fates]

Fixed, MD.

Edit:
Let me see if I've got my Republican dogma knowledge right

Socially: Ban gay marriage and make us a theocracy again, after all it's not like the top ten nations to live in are highly secular and tolerant.

Economically: Poor people, deal with the [poo] we kick down the line to you. Also, you must accept the blame even though we control production. We should probably cut back on social programs too, now that we have less tax revenue since shifting our manufacturing base over seas.

I have a question about the "Socially" statement you made. When did America have a theocracy? You know, since Republicans want a theocracy again, logic dictates that the United States was a theocracy in the past. I am just curious as to the dates, years, or any real historical data that says we were a theocracy?

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Mandalore, I am not fighting on an uncontested issue. I am trying to tell you it is the ONLY issue. It is what all makes all the other dominoes fall. The "Standard of Living" in the U.S. is too high to sustain in a Globalized economy. Period. In a globalized economy the U.S. SOL MUST fall to Depression era levels. in That scenario, the "Rich" stay rich and get richer. The middle class gets wiped out and even the poor can't find work.

Is it "Moral?" Strictly speaking, yes. I said, "once the consumer WOULD buy something better made and cheaper from somewhere else..." that reflected a change in societies morality which allowed and encouraged Globalization.

My point was that there's actually quite a good bit of opportunity in these developing countries for people with a good education where as that opportunity isn't as great for those of us in industrialized countries comparatively.

EXACTLY. You want what they have without the lower SOL. You want your cake and eat it too.

Regarding my rant on being a Man. I will apologize for calling you out. I stand by my statements, but it was not right to publicly criticize you for failing to understand the difference between being a "man" and a "Man". I had spent nearly an hour in IM chat with what I will call an Internet Friend (I break bread with plain old Friends) because he felt suicidal and needed to reach out to someone. Until 2 years ago when my brother-in-law committed suicide I wouldn't have known what to say or how to relate to someone in that situation. Then, I couldn't imagine a mental place where, outside of being physically tortured or wasting away from a painful terminal illness, I would think I couldn't handle what life has to throw at me. Where death was an answer. No Man who would willing sport the sign of the Dollar as his credo could have such a twisted mental outlook. I hope that helps clarify to you why I say that you are wrong to question a Man's ability to handle adversity such as a miniscule income.

Lee Greenwood wrote a song. Lots of folks call it patriotic and a tribute to our armed forces. It's used as a soundtrack to THOUSANDS of homemade videos. To me it is about something more powerful and less understood. It's not the chorus that stirs my heart, though I sing it strongly and with conviction. Having served my country in the Marines in time of war, I would gladly standup still today. But the reason why...it is the first two lines of the song. It is the only explanation necessary.

If tomorrow all the things were gone, I worked for all my life and I had to start again, just my children and my wife. I'd thank my lucky stars to be living here today, cause the Flag still stands for freedom and they can't take that away.

[WD-40]

I love how everyone acts like all of us who earn under 40k per year line up for miles for welfare. Get off your [m'kay] high horse, you mother [m'kay] pigs. Most of us work hard for next to nothing. My mother earns around 33k (she is an auditor) and she is a single mother of two. We get by, but we aren't out buying gold plated deca-core computers, if you know what I mean. The problem with our system is not that the poor are [m'kay] up, but that the system is [m'kay] up the poor. Do you know how hard it is for people like me to go to a good college, just through sheer cost? I qualified for a school that offered me 27k/34k tuition (room and board included) that is in a triumvirate system with University of Chicago (ranked sixth in the world) and NorthWestern (ranked somewhere in the high 20s to low 30s world wide) but I still am unable to afford to attend there for four years. And to advance in today's society without a college diploma would be quite the endeavor for someone of my generation. (You [derriere orifice] got lucky, seeing as the generation previous to you exploded the [m'kay] out of any competition).
Secondly, no one in their right mind is advocating taxing the rich at a 99.9% rate. But having a scaled tax system is preferable, given the economic distribution of wealth. Also, we aren't advocating high taxation rates of small businesses, but look at GE. It's a multi-billion dollar business. It actually made a profit off of taxes. How is that even [m'kay] possible? (Loop holes, is how it's possible) And how do churches get away without taxes? I really want to know the answer to that one, for a religion that claims to be the protector of the poor, they sure seem rather fussy about paying their god damn share.

Do you want to know what exploiting the poor gets you? It gets you a lot of pissed off mother [m'kay] who end up annihilating the aristocratic class.

Hmmm...Let's see Mandelore...My dad was a Machinist earning $20,000/yr when I was growing up in the 70's. My Mother was a homemaker earning $0. We couldn't buy much either. I grew up in a small 1,500 sq/ft home built in the 1940's. I graduated High School in 1980 with between a 3.0 to 3.5 GPA. Signed up thru the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps (NROTC) at Miami University. An excellent top college and not cheap to go to. Back then, abt $15,000-20,000/yr. By joining the NROTC, the Navy paid my Tuition and books. My parents paid my Board. 4 years later, I graduated with a bachelors in Engineering and received a Commission in the Navy. Went immediately to Flight School, got my Naval Aviator Wings, and, now it's today, and I'm flying Gulfstream 5's and heavy Turboprops making decent money.

My point is Mandelore, don't hand miss 'Woe is me' crap! Your background is no different than mine was. Where there is a 'will', there is a 'way'! Stop whining!

Regarding the Rich paying their 'fair share'...You need to wake up! They all ready do! They pay well over 70% of ALL taxes paid! They are the EMPLOYERS! If you Screw the EMPLOYERS hard enough (like Obama wants to), then they have NO INCENTIVE to make more money or expand their business! Therefore, NO INCENTIVE to hire more people! Higher taxes means LOST JOBS..PEOPLE GET LAYED OFF! GET IT?!?! You solve nothing. The douche bags in Congress have to spend less. It has been out of control during both Republican and Democratic Administrations and Congressional Congresses. Everyone is to blame in DC. Term Limits!

[toad]

In India there is opportunity for the poor. In America, there is not.

You really need to readjust your thinking if you want to move forward in life. I was at a worse spot than your mom is/was. I worked 12+ hours a day better myself to get me into my current position. Stop whining, buck up, and go to college. Don't listen to these fools about that college is pointless. If couldn't afford college either and there are tons of ways to go. At your current income, or lack there off, there are tons of grants, funds, whatever out there. Literately billions of free dollars to pay people to go to college. You just need to apply for them.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. ~Thomas Edison

@Dread - Rich Dad/Poor Dad changed my thinking and my way of life. It was a great book. I have competed against Indian firms, and Asian firms for projects and you are dead wrong about idolizing their cultures. If your definition of intelligence is the ability to regurgitate answers on a test then by all means go live there. There was a shift of R&D / tech funds flowing into those regions but not anymore. Creative thinking requires skills that can not be tested. With some minor exceptions most game changing breakthroughs don't happen in India or China. So yeah get on your high horse about the cost of living. As I tell my clients all the time, you get what you pay for.

[Mandalore]

Toad, it was a comparative statement. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. And obviously exaggerated. Christ, it's like this is the literal readers club.

And WD, it was a statement in COMPARISON. COMPARISON GUYS. COMPARATIVE. COMPARISON. COMPARATIVE. COMPARISON. Get it? It's a comparison of opportunity. The little indian boy has a greater chance of having a high ROI than the average American. This is their 1890s. Is there opportunity in America? Yes. Is there a chance for social mobility within the US? Yes. But my point was, is that the Indians/Chinese are in the boom faze of industrialization. I was in the PRC a few years ago as a student ambassador and they're building entire cities like it's going out of fashion, mostly along the coast though. This is the time when their Carnegies and Rockafellers are emerging.

And it wasn't so much a personal "woe is me", it was a [m'kay] example. Christ! An example to show how college costs are a bottleneck of social mobility within this country. Can you succeed without a college degree? Yes, but your odds are very low. And WD, they might very well pay what amounts to 70% of tax revenues, but that would still be mis-proportionate seeing as how the top 20% holds roughly 80-85% of the overall net worth within the country and 90% of financial wealth. I thought you'd like a source since I'm spewing numbers so here it is!

[toad]

Toad, it was a comparative statement. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. COMPARATIVE. And obviously exaggerated. Christ, it's like this is the literal readers club.

LOL, it's not my fault you used a very bad comparative analysis.

[Mandalore]

Once you factor in exaggeration, it's honestly not that bad of a comparison. As I said in the previous post, this is their version of America in the 1890s, those who have the technical know how in countries such as Mexico, China, India, and Vietnam are profiting quite handsomely in the areas of industry, infrastructure, and the like. On the other hand, most of America's new wealthy are a result of the tech revolution or finance.