Once again power is Obama's number 1 priority. Homeland security, border security, economic security doesn't matter to Obama. All that matters is that he secure the latino vote because let's face it if he has to run on his dismal record he doesn't stand a chance! His motives are as transparent as his invitation of latina starlets to the white house to "advise" him on the issue is ridiculous! What does Eva Longoria know about border issues? Is being latina automatically qualify you as an expert??
Errr, what's the main goal of House Republicans?
End abortion rights for women....raise taxes on women.....give more tax breaks to rich people.....demonize Obama.
That about covers it.
Mr. President, where are the jobs?
Oh I know--he needs MORE tax cuts for his rich friends, and THEN the jobs will come!
But first and foremost, an attack on women!
"God bless America. Land that I love".......anybody seen her lately?
The Koch-s*ckers and right-wing fake Christians have taken her away......
Actually, border control is very high on the Repub agenda. Obama and the Dems fight them all the time. Obama said yesterday the Repubs will never be happy. True, until the borders are secure both Repubs and Dems should not be happy. By the way, I see the Media is not reporting about the gunfire that happened during Obamas speech, Bullets came from across the border and riddled the goverment offices, not far from where Obama was giving his speech. Not on word on CNN, MSNBC, Huff Post or anywhere else I have read today. Wonder why?
Where do they get the guns?
And who screams bloody murder if you want to poke a hole into their profits?
hint: One of the 3 strongest lobbies in the USA.
They got some of there guns from a Border Control sting gone wrong. They got some of there guns smuggled in from US they purchased from the balck market. They also have Russian weapons though it is not clear how they got them. Where it was a direct purchase from Russia, or if they bought the Russian guns from a 3rd party like the middle east
Not only that but the day before Obama showed up to make fun of the republicans efforts to secure the border there was a shootout at Falcon lake where 15 were killed.
Where did they get the guns? Why not ask Obama because you wont find this in the MSM!
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/21/what- … gunrunner/
Is the daily caller a member of the NRA??
Just askin, cause I dam sure am not going to a righty web-site.
I am allergic. They give me hives.
Can't take the lies anymore!!!
well,well...I just heard...it was the dailycaller that started the Common-at-the-white-house-bash-Obama business!!!
So, OBVIOUSLY they are pro NRA.
Thank GOD I didn't go to that site.
I suggest you google operation gun runner and pick whatever source you want. The short version is the ATF basically walked automatic weapons across the border and supplied drug cartels with them... one of those guns killed a border agent. This under the watchful eye of Holder who was probably distracted building the suit against AZ SB1070... and ultimately the buck stops with Obama himself!
I understand your feelings. Are they pro NRA, do not know. I do know the NRA is not in favor of arming drug dealers in Mexico. But it is OK to arm the average exican. My question is how do you tell the difference? You need to read everything, even if it a site you deisagree with in the end. That is how you become well informed. I read all site despite the lies that are in them. I pickout the lies by doing research in credible sources. Bith sides web sites lie. A media or news report are not actual facts. Spmeone being closed minded should give everyone the hives
I refuse to read anything thast is specifically designed to hate someone...period.
And that is all the righty gobbledeegook is. Have read enough of it to know.
It's hate and poison. I told you--I'm allergic.
Besides...I can go to rense.com, and get all opinions on all topics....not anything gender neutral: that site is all bashing all sides all the time!
I prefer that to one-sided hatred.
You act like government can create jobs. It can't.
on top of that, you seem to think that Taxes are something that people SHOULD pay. They aren't.
Governments can create jobs either directly through capital projects and work programmes or indirectly through incentives to private industry.
They also create jobs through demand for materials and services.
Agreed, we could not to pay taxes but that would mean living in somewhere like Afghanistan without the scenery or the culture.
No. Government can't create jobs. For each dollar the government spends to create a job, it must tax from their populace, and thus a job is lost in the private sector. 1 - 1 = 0
On top of that, the government then must go about shouting as loud as it can to declare that it "created" a job. This costs money, and thus costs private sector jobs. 1 - 1 - 1 = -1
On top of that, the jobs created are not the jobs that the people necessarily want. If they were, then why wouldn't the private sector have created the jobs in the first place? Sure, people might SAY that they want to have (for example) a translator at every school, but the fact that such a program would cost billions of dollars immediately diffuses the desire. 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 = -2
Government can't create jobs. It can only, at the VERY best, shift them from one sector to another, and at the worst, destroy jobs.
Ah, the numbers game!
Why exactly does a government job automatically mean the end of a private sector job? The government created job (which might be in the private sector) increases demand for goods produced by the private sector. 1+1=2
The government then shouts loudly to declare that it has created a job. This involves PR, quite possibly in the private sector. 1+1+1=3
The private sector does not always provide the jobs that need doing, only the jobs that they can make a profit on. Would the private sector build a road if there wasn't enough traffic to justify it? 1+1+1+1=27
Government can and does provide jobs. Was early space research carried out by private enterprise? Was the highway system of America built by private enterprise?
You know they weren't, don't you!
Government. Can't. Create. Jobs.
If i'm "the government" and I choose to take money from you to give to some other guy. Sure, a job is "created", but it comes at the cost of your well-being.
Look at your own argument: paragraph 3. "Shouting a lot is a job! yay!" BUT IT'S A POINTLESS JOB THAT IS WORTHLESS IN EVERY WAY!!! It's a waste of resources. It's a WASTE of a job.
There COULD have been a more productive job, but instead we waste resources yelling "HER DER! I STOLE MONEY FROM JIM AND GAVE IT TO JOHN! I CREATED A JOB BY DESTROYING ANOTHER!"
Government can't create jobs, it can only shift resources.
Then by that argument, private enterprise can't create jobs either, only shift resources.
I noticed you avoided comment on Space Programmes and Road Building!
Good! you've realized that there was a bit of inconsistency in the argument! now we're getting somewhere.
As with the "speculators are evil" forum discussion, my argument needs one more point to come to fruition.
What is a price? A price is nothing more than what 2 or more individuals VOLUNTARILY choose to trade for a good or service.
Trade is how wealth is generated. If two people VOLUNTARILY choose to trade something, then, by definition, they are both better off than they were before (or at least, they both think that they will be). More often than not, people correctly guess about how much value they will gain.
Trade can also take place in wages and labor: if I voluntarily work for you for money, then we are trading. My labor for your money.
However, if you take my money against my will, then we are NOT trading.
Government does this, and thus it can not make wealth gains.
Tell me about petrol (gas) you pay voluntarily or the cartel has decided that if you want gas, that is what you pay for it?
Well you were extolling the wonders of the free market and private enterprise.
Telling us how the buyer and seller reached a mutually agreeable price and everything is terribly civilised and gentlemanly.
i said nothing about gentelmanly -- but you agree to pay the price (As do i), and we make our decisions based on that price.
I choose to drive X miles to work every day in my car instead of buying an electric, or moving closer, or taking a bus, or riding my bike, etc. etc.
Prices reflect the scarcity and value of a good or service, but are, in the end, nothing more than "how much you gonna give me for that?"
So good...they got their tax cuts. They said it would create the jobs....trickle down--member?
We oh so stupid ones were supposed to believe them...
Well--they got what they wanted, and now they want more. And still--no jobs from them.
The ONLY sector helping to create jobs is the gubmint.
How many times must we be bamboozled before we get it?
Jobs isn't what an economy needs.
I can get us 100% employment easily. It's just that no one would like it.
Just give me enough gasoline and a match.
get everyone to safety, spray gasoline over every major farm field.
And burn it.
Wait 3 days -- don't put out the fire -- and we'll all have to work very hard to fix things.
We'll have 100% employment, but shitty lives.
100% employment is NOT the goal of an economy.
Rich and healthy production that fulfills the desires of the populace is.
I wanted to further point out that this is one of the reasons why the economy looked so "healthy" during WWII (at least in the US).
When you force 11 million kids to fight in a foreign country, and then force the women to take up the slack, employment looks fine'n'dandy.
But life sucked. Horribly.
Yes it must have sucked, all those Americans bombed out of their homes, seeing the enemy marching down your streets.
John. We're done. You proved my point with this statement.
My point was that war is bad for the economy, and you just further emphasized that it was bad with your discriminatory statement.
SO, while I'm disgusted with what you wrote, you still proved me right.
Of course he's hoping...His hope is not unreasonable. Both parties have successfully courted specific voting blocks. He will likely be successfull. Bush was.
Shock horror, Obama is the first politician in the whole history of the world to look toward his own political career!
Yes indeed. No other president of the US has ever sought a second term in office!
LOL. Probably one of the few times we agree on something
Wasn't it Obama that said he'd rather be a really good one term president than a two term mediocre one? I think Obama should quit while he's ahead!
Oh and he was the one that campaigned on being different hope and change and all that now you're telling me he's just another 2 bit politician? I'm crushed!! Lol
Well, I mean... if you are a man and you had to pick between inviting Eva Longoria or George Lopez, who would you invite?!
I hear you on this. You're right. WTH does she know about immigration?
Immigration reform is desperately needed, so I really don't see the problem with Obama pushing for it.
Under the current system, if you can't get an employment or family-based visa, you probably can't get a visa at all. (The Diversity Visa lottery is one of the few exceptions, but Mexicans, Filipinos, Cubans, Indians, Chinese, and other common nationalities aren't eligible for it, and even if you win it, you have to find a US citizen or permanent resident who will sponsor you, which is tough if you don't already have family here.)
Given that employment and family-based visas cost thousands of dollars and can have waiting times of 20 years or more (If you're a Filipino in the family-based category, 4th preference - brothers and sisters of US citizens - your application will be processed next month if you filed it in May 1988; a Mexican in the same category has been waiting since February 1996.), is it any wonder that people are trying to sneak in illegally?
Lol! Yes im sure they do! I'll bet most of their servant staff are illegal immigrants!
Nice way to reach out to the latino community......see why people love you righty's so much?
But, just one little thing...Mr. Speaker: WHERE ARE THE JOBS??????
They were both claiming they would provide jobs, They claimed were right and everyone else was wrong. How is that working out?
Excuse me, but the Republicans got voted in SPECIFICALLY to provide jobs!
That is what they harped on to get elected, then once in....they could care LESS.
Hard to make things happen when the Dem senate and Obama are against everthing they are for. WHat is Obamas excuse in South Carolins? Boing want to build a plant that would create thousands of jobs< Dems and Obama are against it. Is it because S.Carolina is a Repub state? would the Dems and Obama say yes if it was New Yorh or North Carolina which are Dem states. I do not think so.
Sorry, last sentence was typo I do think so was what I wanted to write.
MY-how the tables have turned!!
Didn't you guys used to say that Republican Obstruction had nothing to do with Obama's failure to get things done? ahahahaha
But now--the Repub FAILURE to give a sh*t about jobs is the Dems fault.
They got their tax cuts. They said that would provide jobs. They lied. IMO
UH--the continuation of the Bush era cuts--which the righty's held unemployment hostage to.
AND--I got a tax cut from the Obama plan---didn't you?
Conitinuation of a tax cut that has been in existance for several years is not new tax cut. Thats likw the oil companies claiming they pay so much in taxes. A closer look shows they are not paying much tax on profits. They are trying to claim that the tax that is added to gas by the Feds that oil companies collect are taxes they pay. They are not. They just collect them and pass it on to the Gov.
I guess you were the only one who got a tax cut. Since I am not working right now, i cannot speak to myself. I asked a few nurses and cna's here at the hospital as they come in and treat me. None of them recieved a tax break but say there takehome pay is less. They were told the fed withhold went up due to the new healthcare program. I do not know if it is true but I know Obama himself said during the time he was pushing the bill, that was going to happen.
So, no, you didn't look into it. You just like to make insulting assumptions.
I wouldn't call it an insulting assumption, I'd refer to it as an educated guess.
Funny but I wonder why Obama didn't invite any of the ranchers farmers or others affected by the illegal immigration problem? He went right to Hollywood where the money is!!! Hmmmm
Funny that politicians are political, and forum ranter don't bother to fact check but just make stuff up according to their prejudices. Such is the way of the world.
I also didn't see him talking to vegetable farmers who depend on illegals because not enough American will sign up to do minimum wage hard open air labor.
That was probably the last time he comes to Texas anyway. This is a Repub state, he has no chance. That is why other swing states get disaster ais before they even ask for it, but Gov Perry is screaming for it and Obama will not sign the disaster order. Do not even try to tell me this is not about politics. What about South Carolina, onother Repub state. Boing wants to build a new plant there that would mean THOUSAND OF NEW JOBS. But the OBAMA AND THE DEMS ARE AGAINST IT. Bet if New york or North Carolins, Dem states wanted to build it Obama and them dems would be for it and even give them the money to build it
It's also why Gv Perry could refuse to meet with the president?
Imagine that...snubbing the pres...that makes 3 so far as I know: Perry, Boehner and McConnell.
Nice example of bi-partiship, which they always seem to demand for themselves.
Dems have a way to go to equal the amount that snubbed Bush. None party should snub the other. They may not agree but they must meet to try and come to an agreement on issues. By the way, Perry snubbed Obama because Obama will not sign a diaster bill for Texas. So I guess we can say Obama snubbed Perry and Texas first
They snub Obama cause they have no respect for him as the President of the United States.
THEY are above him, doncha know.
Above all of us. They know Soooooo much better than anyone.
That's why it's always "my way or the highway" with them.
Not bullcrap, fact. Obama refuses to sign the disaster bill. It is Obama who thinks he is above everyone else. He wants to control all of Americans. Look at his new future excetitive order demanding contractors show who they donate to. Wel it is already public information, but he wants it disclosed at bidding so he can dismiss anyone who donates to Repubs, no matter how well qualified they are to do the project. Sounds like control to me
An uneducated guess is more along the lines of the Unloved Lady...
But, have we learned to expect less form this sad character?
The likes of her lack the real substance to discuss, propose, or implement true immigration reform, which would have to include altering the U.S. stance towards foriegn and business relations with many nations....
Instead, she and her ilk follow the Heritage Foundation, Koche brother nonsense talking points, which do nothing but try to drive undocumented workers deeper into the shadows...
They are not really worried about the presence of the undocumented...they just want to ensure that they can't come out to claim their rights and file lawsuits against their abusers...
There is a specific chain of Armenian restaurants here in Los Angeles.....and while they have won "Business of the Year" for this state, their cooks, cleaning crews, and order takers are nearly all undocumented...
When Meg Whitman was running for the governor's seat, she spoke over and over about how tough she was going to be on the undocumented, and this Armenian restaurant was one of her backers...
Were they doing so to get rid of the "illegal aliens"?
But when they cut their employees' overtime hours again, there would be an even greater fear of coming out "of the immigration closet" to report the labor law violations...
Carwash workers here in Los Angeles are mostly all undocumented. While tens of millions of dollars are raked in via profits, the car washers themselves typically work only for tips, or, are paid a flat daily fee, instead of an hourly wage. The companies do not comply with OSHA standards, and since their employees are undocumented, the owners don't fear being called out on their negligence...
Whitman's "tougher immigration" stance would have done nothing but make the bosses' stranglehold tighter around the necks of their workers...
But, the Clean Carwash Campaign, who I marched in solidarity with this past May Day in L.A., is working to change this.....
And an immigration overhaul, which is desperately needed, will put an end to the abusive practices of American business owners....who love to have a weak underclass readily available...
This is how the American Dream was built....and undocumented workers are a surefire way to maximize profits...
The DREAM Act needs resurrection, and a California style pattern of labor laws need to be put in place in other states, and at the federal level.
(All workers in California, regardless of immigration status, are protected by laws concerning minimum wage, work hours, and workplace safety conditions)
The United States is on both ends of the "push/pull" dynamic that drives undocumented immigration...
It is high time we take responsibility for this, and propose true reform...
In the meantime, the Lackluster Lady will babble nonsensically about a very serious issue....as usual, for without an education, one cannot make an educated guess....
Time for school Lady.
Nice post to bad you did not include all the Dems who were supported by companies who employ undocumented aliens. Lets be honest, both sides are guilty of this. Re form needs to happen. I think LALO is just pointing out that Obama is not really serious about the issue. If he was he would not be consulting with hollywood, but with proper scholars well versed on the suject. By the way, American Dream was not built on taking advantage of undocumented workers
Obama doesn't have to change anything to get re-elected. He simply has to run against a group of Neanderthals supported by their fellow knuckle-dragging Republicans...
Ron Paul will slay the beast of 2 trillion backs.
Ron Paul 2012.
I hope Ron Paul runs as an independent. He of course has no prayer to win the Republican nomination.
The skeleton is out of RP's closet....he votes no on bills containing pork after he puts pork in them, knowing they will pass. Check the congressional records.
That's really not a big deal.
If he didn't try to win his state the money that's being stolen from it, then he'd be a worthless congressman.
I think it would be much more valid to demand "why the hell are all the other congressmen voting on pork projects even though the person who put them in there doesn't even vote for them!?"
The media is going to have field day with this if he gets out in front.
"ZOMG!! A Congressman who got money for his district!!!"
It's not that simple and you know it. He's 75, been in office for years. He complains about fiscal irresponsibility and then acts irresponsibly. It's the pinacle of hypocracy. I like you am a hard core Libertarian. However, after doing more research on Ron, I can't give him my vote. NOT ONE INSTANCE OF CORRUPTION can be tolerated at this point.
Democrats are not a monolithic whole like the Republicans... The DREAM Act was put forward...and it passed in the House... But, Republican-minded Democrats kept it from emerging from the Senate...
But, had it passed, Obama would have signed it into law....and that is what is important here.
Hollywood, Los Angeles period, is the money pot of the nation in terms of political fundraising. Los Angeles is also home to more undocumented than anywhere else in the nation, and it is also the base of the largest immigration reform organizations, so it would make sense to discuss immigration here.
Concerning my claim that the American Dream was built on the backs of undocumented, this is absolutely true...
Look at the wealth created by the building of the transcontinental railroads....and their adjoining lines running southward into Mexico... The wealth of the Huntingtons, et al, rode atop the backs of Mexican men brought illegally across the border to work on the railroads...and after slavery was made illegal, Mexicans were routinely brought across the border to farm, just to be thrown back over the border after the work was done.. Our agricultural base, and our logistics network...these account for a lions-share of our national wealth...and the ascendency of many Americans into elite-economic status...
From that certain Armenian restaurant to the 800 million dollar income-raking strawberry fields, a large percentage of American Dream wealth has been made on the backs of undocumented men, women, and children.
While they may not teach any of this in school, it is the truth..
One more point about the American Dream being built atop illegal immigration...
Let us not forget that it was the illegal immigration of Americans into Mexico that created destabilization within that nation, and which helped spark the illegal immigration of American troops into Mexico...
The illegal confiscation of Mexican territory, like California, was the framework for the "go west" concept.....which is directly linked to the "American Dream".
I have been reading the reports of Mexican border officials from the 1830's, as they write about the flood of Americans crossing into Mexico...of the contraband they smuggle, and of the crimes they cause...
Correspond all of this to President Taylor's "we will overrun Mexico with waves of immigrants" philosophy of non-military invasion of a foreign country and you will see more clearly what I am trying to say...
Where is the substance?
Repubs stopped passage in the Dem controlled Senate after a Reub controlled House past it. Yea its ALL the repubs fault.( being sarcastic in case you did not realize). If you were correct about Undocs building America on there backs, There would be millions of Undocumented Millionares. I do not see any, do you? Not to mention Undocs would outnumber Legal Americans in order for your therory to be true.
Almost every fully employed person got a $400 tax cut last year and this year--but not next year.
Sounds like the president and commander in chief to me.
Whether or not people "should" pay taxes is a matter of opinion rather than fact. I certainly think those who use or benefit from joint property like roads and fire-fighters should pay for it.
No, actually, it isn't opinion.
I never once signed any document agreeing to be taxed by anyone. Thus taxes are theft.
I suppose you could argue that "i hate theft" is an opinion, but that's a pretty universal opinion that almost every animal alive recognizes.
But you don't have to pay taxes Evan. Just give up all the benefits of society and instant freedom from taxes.
No. If I stop paying taxes, then the resources others pay for put me in jail.
See how that works? Tyranny? yeah.
PS - Just about every "benefit of society" have come from the private sector. Just thought I'd remind you that just about everything that you love about life was created by private individuals WELL before they were stolen by government.
No, you are only jailed if you continue to use the resources but refuse to pay. Get yourself an old pram and take to the road (walking) and you'll live tax free and unmolested by the tax authorities.
Exactly what benefits came from the private sector and were stolen by the government.
I love open spaces, park land, moorland, woods and the like. Very few are provided by private enterprise, even fewer give me unlimited access.
"They hang the man and flog the woman,
Who steals the goose from off the common,
Yet let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose."
— Seventeenth-century English protest rhyme
So you don't count roads and bridges, the rule of law, firefighters, safe food, protection from invasion and terrorism or an unpolluted environment as "major"?
Evan, look at the history of roads in the US.
And then look at the history of roads in the world.
(PS - the federal government was repeatedly denied permission to fund the construction of interstate roads.)
And spot the one thing they all have in common. All the efficient nationwide road systems are government funded. In fact it was the German Autobahn that inspired Eisenhower.
Rather than being repeatedly denied permission to fund, it took Eisenhower two years from coming into power to get approval.
the first roads and highways were private. Government merely took control of them, and after millennia, took credit for them.
Yes and look what a good job the private roads did!
"On July 7, 1919 a young army captain named Dwight David Eisenhower joined 294 other members of the army and departed from Washington D.C. in the military's first automobile caravan across the country. Due to poor roads and highways, the caravan averaged five miles per hour and took 62 days to reach Union Square in San Francisco."
http://geography.about.com/od/urbanecon … states.htm
I don't recall the Roman Roads being either private or taken over by the government after they were built.
... so.. the roads worked well, unless you had a major world war going on and some random guy had to drive a few hundred people with major military equipment across the entire f-ing country...
The war was actually over by 1919, no wait, sorry, of course there was all the bomb damage from aerial raids wasn't there, and of course there were all the land mines to contend with too!
Do you need another straw yet? The one you're clutching at present must be getting worn.
Evan, doesn't your statement concerning the creation of jobs "robbing from the private sector" only true if those jobs currently existed in the private sector?
If there is a lack of jobs in the private sector, and that same sector is not doing anything to boost employment, then what is the alternative?
While our national infrastructure (the very thing that 1) created the middle class and 2) establishes our wealth and value) is crumbling, there is an absence of private industry solutions, ability, or will-power to fix decay or expand capacity...
As for the relation concerning government creating jobs and taxes, private industry is the same, except that they charge fees and "prices" for their products...
The government products are safety, security, and peace (I am generalizing here, for I think we all understand the purpose of government). No private industry can top this....the price we pay is taxes.... If I want the service of shoe-making, I have to pay a price to receive the product...
Taxes vs. Prices.......
Those government jobs...create the environment for the private sector....and their guaranteed, secure flow of money fuels the "modern" economy we see today...
How many towns/cities across this nation would dry up if the military base, public university, and factory/ies producing machines/materials for government agencies disappeared?
Pensacola, Florida would be empty....so would Sierra Vista, Arizona... Hawaii would be much less affluent... Think of the businesses that 1) gather the resources, 2) manufacture the products, and 3) salespersons who (for example) produce hoses for the fire departments across the country...what of the trucks and their parts? Clothing? This goes on endlessly...the microscopic perspective that gets lost in the "government spending" rhetoricizing..
you assume that all sectors of the economy need to be constantly expanding. That's nonsense.
The "horse and carriage" sector of the economy collapsed because it was too expensive and consumers didn't want it anymore.
So did the "candles for light" industry. And countless other industries have had a 100% decrease in employment over the ages.
When a sector collapses, that just means that it isn't worth the resources it takes to provide the good or service.
What is this "national infrastructure creating the middle class" garbage? The "middle class" is just some vaguely defined group of individuals who aren't poor and aren't rich. There was nothing "national" about it: it was nothing more than production reading the point of lifting a large number of people out of relative poverty (emphasis on RELATIVE poverty).
"How many towns/cities across this nation would dry up if the military base, public university, and factory/ies producing machines/materials for government agencies disappeared?"
ALL that this question tells me is that those public services aren't necessary and are a waste of money. ... tell me again why we have a military base in Okinawa?
If something can only stay profitable because of theft (taxes) then it is a drain on the economy.
And the private sector, unlike our government, is solely responsible to its shareholders....not the consumer...
As an American citizen, I am both an investor and a customer...and most of the products I am receiving I enjoy paying for...whether they are the parks, the relative peace that my community maintains, and the roadways that ensure that goods reaching my local markets flow smoothly.
Enron shareholder, or American citizen....which is a greater return on investment?
Remove the goverment....diminish the value of citizenship...and let us see what the Enron-ilk will have waiting in its place.....
No doubt. The government can become just as corrupt. Your argument seems to imply that it's boils down to a choice of suffering through a mugging or a home invasion......
The bank owns your house, the government owns the land. The Bank owns your car, the government owns the roads. See what I mean?
NO!! NOT "BEING RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE THAT INVESTED IN THE COMPANY!!!!"
... If I enter into a private agreement with another individual and say that I'll give him $50 for 0.01% of all future profits -- and we both agree -- why is that "evil"?
You act like those running the government are holy angels sent from on high to guide our feeble and mindless lives into future prosperity. This is nonsense. EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. in the government is guided by self-interest.
"But we can vote them out", you reply. Of course we can... every 3-6 years!!!!!!! With a company, we can vote them out instantly by refusing to buy their products.
For example: I saw a tie that I really liked at the store, but I refused to buy it because it was produced by Donald Trump.
Vote with your money.
It is what it is....
The price of freedom.....but it is wrong to imply this all with a negative connotation...
My community does not have the means to independently protect itself against fire....which comes every year (the Station Fire for example..I live in the foothills).. We would not have the ability to keep our roads paved...
The government suffers from corruption, as does the private sector...as do religious institutions...as does humanity..
"corruption"....is not always a bad thing, either...just like lying is not always a bad thing to do...
It was the corruption of Ottoman government officials and military that enabled my great-grandfather to escape the Sultan's death sentence on at least two occasions..
If it were not for the corruption of bribery and disloyalty towards the Sultanate, I would not be here today...
It all depends on the motives and the means...
Police departments and their detective bureaus were found rife with corruption as soon as they were initiated here in the United States in the mid-19th century... But it was also realized that they could not be done away with...their beneficial services were too important...
True they are involved with drug running and racketeering...but if someone robs your house....or murders your mother (as happened to an uncle of mine several years ago), they are a resource to turn to....
It is better to have something than nothing...would you not agree?
Shall we close the police departments and jails/prisons/courthouses?
The lack of private sector contribution in this nation is increasing our demand on these resources...... (Because it is better to pay Mexicans less....it is far more profitable to use Chinese, Indian, and Thai labor)
While I see globalization as a natural, unavoidable process the private sector is abusing the constraints of the now crippling idea of national sovereignty...
It is important, in my view, that international laws and enforecement be expanded... One nation's poverty should not be used as a weapon against workers in a developed state. Monetary systems, labor laws, worker reprsentation without the fear of murder, arrest, kidnapping, and torture (Coca-Cola, Shell Oil, Nike apparel, amongst so many others, please stand up and take a bow) need to be reformed. The plutocracy Citigroup writes so much about internally needs to realize that there cannot be a safe haven for them to flee toward...taking undeserved wealth with them...
No Cayman Island status.....
If your city can't afford to protect itself from fires, then maybe living there is a bad choice.
Notice how living at your city is, apparently, only doable if you rely on stealing money from your neighbor in an involuntary transaction.
Through government, living in idiotic places and wasting money is "doable"... not really something you should be arguing for.
No chance of the inhabitants of that city deciding to group together and buy a fire engine then!
See, they CAN come together VOLUNTARILY -- but that is nothing more than a voluntary exchange between individuals.
But it has to be unanimous, otherwise it's theft.
I, for one, have never been asked whether I would like to pay taxes or not.
But you want to benefit from society so it is taken that you are not a free loader and want to pay your share.
I fail to see how society needs to be fueled from theft.
Unanimous consent is one things, theft is another.
I've told you, if you don't want to make use of the facilities, drop out.
You don't want to pay for the benefits of society, you want to steal them?
man, you REALLY don't get this.
"I pay taxes because if I don't they'll throw me in jail."
compare that sentence to:
"I gave the man my wallet because if I didn't, he would have shot me".
No, don't drive, don't live in a house, don't work and don't pay taxes.
Nobody will throw you in jail.
but i'll live like a pig BECAUSE YOU CLAIM THE RIGHT TO STEAL FROM ME.
No,you'd live like a pig to escape from stealing from me, stealing the goods and services my taxes pay for.
Not necessarily. Most of the people I know who are as hardcore libertarian as you homestead, because they can avoid paying virtually everything except property taxes. They have fewer gadgets and frivolous possessions than most people, but otherwise live quite comfortably.
Evan, John makes an excellent point here. You can become perfectly immune from the "tyranny" of taxation and government. Admittedly it won't be easy, but it can be done. Like John said, don't buy a house, don't rent a house, don't purchase anything that is taxed, don't use any "tyrannical" public services like fire and police - simply live a vagrant existance wondering the fields of America, grow you own food , make your own clothing - you and OlyHooch. Refuse to participate in organized society - anarchy, right?
Look, you are clealy a smart guy, but someone who, dare I say, has more idealism in his soul than real-life experience. I am not trying to insult you so please take no offense. Your idealogy is a bit like that of Marx - utopian in thought but impossibly impractical in practice. Twenty-five years ago I was right with you.
What a garbage argument.
"Because I claim the right to steal money from you, then YOU must live your life wallowing in filth."
Is that REALLY going to be your argument?
If I came up to you guys with a gun and said "if you don't want to die, then give me all your money, your home, and all your property"... you're argument's logic would demand that, because I don't want to give in to theft, I should allow myself to be shot in the face...
..... instead of fighting back.
Yes - this is how flawed your argument is. But you guys will never acknowledge it.
Evan, I have always been civil with you in the few exchanges we have had on the forums. I really don't take kindly to having a legitimate "point" referred to as a "garbage argument."
But here I go nonetheless. What are you about 26 or 27? Had a job or two - no mortgage, maybe a rent payment - certainly student loans under your belt, etc. You live in a truly sheltered world - at least for now. Below the belt comment? Yeah.... but most on here, the older crowd which includes myself, treat you as if you were some "prince" because, admittedly, you don't deviate from your "party line." But something to keep in mind - your idealogy, your party is no more realistic than Marxism. Dude - grow up. "Theft" as you like to refer to it is only "theft" if nothing is received in exchange for your tax dollars. I have lived in several countries myself - I know you have lived in Japan. I am a solid member of the middle at when it's all said and done, my tyrannical tax burden runs about 15-17% of gross income. And that is no burden friend to be able to live in a relatively safe and stable country.
Once again, the "i'm older than you, thus I'm wrong" argument.
Sorry, ain't gonna buy it.
No, I think the point is that you are incredibly naive.
Naivete is not necessarily wasted on the young.
Ron Paul is 75 but says he has "young ideas."
There you go!
this coming from the guy who's political and economic philosophy lead him to believe that burning food while people are hungry is a good thing.
Thank you Evan...
Now, using the analogy you mentioned concerning the "cart before the horse".....let us look at these communities like mine that are built "off the robbery of others"...
Have you heard of Lakewood, California?
Being that the Lakewood model was then sprouted all across the nation, what do you think of this development?
But I think your argument is more of a distraction than anything else...
How do you respond to this:
My suburb belongs to the city of Los Angeles. and we pay our taxes for City of L.A. services, which we receive... Libraries, electricity, water, fire and police protection, ambulances, jails and courthouses....
Are these not vital for any community, any city?
Are my taxes not fees that, outside of corruption (which is everywhere and unescapable), go directly to those providing the services, either in action or production?
Who is arguing that all government officials and workers are "angels"?
You won't find this in any of my writings.....but the corruption does not make the benefits of the services provided unreasonable...nor the payments for those services...
I pointed out the example of the police departments and detective bureaus..but I don't see you responding to specific points like these...
As for the infrastructure that built the middle class, if you don't know what I am saying, then I have no idea what it is you think the United States has been founded on...or why we even exist... Perhaps you think its all about freedom?
But it isn't...
The railroads, the interstate highway system, the ports....these are the industries and systems that have been the largest creators of jobs, those of the "middle class"...the small business owners along the highways...the truck drivers, the companies that make all the products that are used in goods movement and production..
Let us look at the economy of the United States at the close of the 19th century, and see what it is by the mid-20th century...look at the population demographics in terms of where people are living, what types of jobs they are doing, and their ability to earn a living and live a to a decent standard..the before and after images speak exactly to what I am saying...
And during that period....for all the private industry gains..it was all on the back of government....whether through the projects that it finished (dams, roads, aqueducts, electrical systems, "market opening" through foreign policy, cheap access to foreign labor through government programs like "Bracero"), wartime profitmaking, or postwar GI-based subsidizing (like Lakewood and the San Fernando Valley).
So, again...its down to prices and taxes...and whether or not one prefers Pacific Gas and Electric to the Department of Water and power (public vs. private)...
They are the same thing....
I use the roads every day... I drink water every day.. I use the park several times per week... I use electricity all the time... Therefore I won't call paying taxes robbery...for it is not so... I am paying for what I am directly and indirectly using... And if I am paying in taxes for my community to share a coordinated system of fire and police protection, then it is not robbery either...many communities who could not pay independently have found a way to gather together and solve the problem collectively...
What is wrong with that?
However, ->speculator-driven high prices for gasoline......
->Enron....I need not say any more about that one
->Pacific Gas and Electric charging fees for services never rendered...(I wrote a hub here about this)
This is different....but, when the company nonsense fails, everyone pays...like the citizens of California at the hands of Enron..
30 billion plus dollars that company cost my state....a price that we are still paying, even though many Californians never used Enron's services...
Our whole state pays, and will continue for a long time, for private industry shenanigans...
why the hell is your state so stupid to give these companies money without getting anything in return?
why are you blaming the companies for the fact that your government is too stupid to ask for what's theirs?
Why do you keep investing money into an organization that repeatedly and relentlessly wastes your money?
... it's not the companies' fault that your government is robbing you blind.
Here is the rest of that Article on Gun Runners
In Project Gunrunner, ATF allowed American guns – including AK-47 assault rifles and military-grade, .50 caliber sniper rifles – to be smuggled into Mexico and sold to drug cartels, with the goal of tracking the weapons after they’ve been used.
The project began during the Bush administration in Laredo, Texas, in 2005 as a trial, morphing into a national program in 2006. The guns were sold and tracked electronically, giving law enforcement agents valuable intelligence on where the weapons went and who had them.
During the Bush years, no guns were allowed to cross the border into Mexico. When President Obama took office in 2009, things changed. Obama’s ATF continued Project Gunrunner, but made a crucial decision to allow guns to be “walked” into Mexico, eventually ending up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/21/what- … z1MmqLfkSa
Your statement about the Blame resting solely on Obama, is not quite true- but it seems from the article that "Both" Bush and Obama are to blame. You might say it seems like a "joint" (pardon the pun) venture.
Please tell the whole story even if it hurts, history is fact not emotion twisted to one side.
Thank you Evan for avoiding my questions with "stupid" comments...
I asked several specific questions......but to answer them one has to actually take this stuff seriously...
So far, I don't see this happening within this forum...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
There are easy solutions to our current socioeconomic ills. They are as follows:(1) Severely curtail illegal immigration. Many illegal aliens receive health care and other amenities which taxpayers pay for....
by Susan Reid4 years ago
The Senate has passed an immigration reform package.What will the House do?Here's an interesting WSJ editorial. Yeah. If the House doesn't pass it, let's blame Pelosi (really?!!!)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
There is a lot of talk about the prospect of President Obama using an executive order to initiate some type of immigration reform before the new Congress takes office.Many pundits are speculating this might occur around...
by Michael Willis7 years ago
And I have an opinion on why. I would love to be wrong, but I just don't see this ever happening. IMOReason why:Illegals in America = Cheaper labor cost.American Business is all about profit. When a business can pay...
by d-richie934 years ago
Will Immigration reform pass?I wrote a hub on this and I would like to just get the opinion of others in this community
by GA Anderson3 years ago
I bet the authors of these two quotes will be quickly identified, but the real question is... what is so wrong with what they say?"America's immigration system is outdated, unsuited to the needs of our economy and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.