Learn about John McCain before you vote!

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually, the estimate I

Actually, the estimate I read of everyone in the US making the same wage was over $80,000 a year - which is fairly high middle class. It's not taking away liberty, it's only taking away the ability to exploit others and be living a life of luxury while others barely survive. I find it taking away poor peoples' liberty when they can't get by on a 40 hour work week. Who would want to work for a private business when they could be paid a fair wage by the government?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Who

MattShizzle wrote:

 Who would want to work for a private business when they could be paid a fair wage by the government?

Great idea until the government goes broke paying a 'fair' wage. What do they do just keep printing money since there won't be any rich people or private businesses around to tax?

But at least the bleeding heart socialists would feel good while the country went broke paying for this. Your left wing economic views are pretty much like theist prayer. They completely ignore how the real world works, how economics works. But the liberals feel good and feel like they are doing something when their proposals would do absolutely nothing to help the situation.

 

The only thing that could work is educating everyone to a level where they can be self-sufficient. But you want to give more money and power to governments that fucked up so many people's education in the first place that they have to rely on government handouts and business mandates to survive.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Isn't the problem, we the

Isn't the problem that, we the common people and the government are two different things? Doesn't education start with being involved? How do we create enthusiasm and involvement?  Isn't  the present system that allows a super rich dynasty the root of the problem? Why allow human vacuum cleaners? Money is blood sweat and tears of the majority. Fuck the minority rich controllers. Wake up, "Eat the Rich" NOW .....

This satire I find compelling, Work could be fun, but it is mostly not for the majority? Why not ?

"THE ABOLITION OF WORK" , By Bob Black , essay

 http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm

Here in 2 podcasts. The first one, is dry and too the point, with no music and the reading is fast. The second one is with trippy music and more fun.

1 : Episode 093 - click the pod button, not the title.

http://radiofreeliberty.libsyn.com/

2 : with music,

http://www.thefalsegods.com/twilight/twilight016.htm

Starts reading the essay at about 1/3 in .... with  additional music breaks .... it takes a few moments to load  most podcasts like this  ....

http://www.thefalsegods.com/twilight/shows/64k/twilight16.mp3

    OR See Show 16 - (lots of other cool shows too)

http://www.thefalsegods.com/twilight/playlists.htm

What a crap ass system we are handing the kids. Yeah I don't have all the solutions, but sheezz, so many fucked up things are obviously changeable for the better. Wake up the neighbor robots. Sue the FCC. Over 500 trillion dollars trying to steal Iraq's oil, was who's brainy idea and why? .... and no universal world health care .... why inflation? ... why mega profit making rich dynasties? .... etc ....

    Yeah "education" in name of FUN .... building a FUN world  .....


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:MattShizzle

EXC wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

 Who would want to work for a private business when they could be paid a fair wage by the government?

Great idea until the government goes broke paying a 'fair' wage. What do they do just keep printing money since there won't be any rich people or private businesses around to tax?

But at least the bleeding heart socialists would feel good while the country went broke paying for this. Your left wing economic views are pretty much like theist prayer. They completely ignore how the real world works, how economics works. But the liberals feel good and feel like they are doing something when their proposals would do absolutely nothing to help the situation.

 

The only thing that could work is educating everyone to a level where they can be self-sufficient. But you want to give more money and power to governments that fucked up so many people's education in the first place that they have to rely on government handouts and business mandates to survive.

 

 

Quite a few of us await responses from you in this thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15073

You've come off like a hit and run troll, to put it nicely. 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Great idea until

EXC wrote:

Great idea until the government goes broke paying a 'fair' wage. What do they do just keep printing money since there won't be any rich people or private businesses around to tax?

But at least the bleeding heart socialists would feel good while the country went broke paying for this. Your left wing economic views are pretty much like theist prayer. They completely ignore how the real world works, how economics works. But the liberals feel good and feel like they are doing something when their proposals would do absolutely nothing to help the situation.

The only thing that could work is educating everyone to a level where they can be self-sufficient. But you want to give more money and power to governments that fucked up so many people's education in the first place that they have to rely on government handouts and business mandates to survive.

Problem is that where communities that have increased the minimum wage economic activity has increased.  Such a thing happens when a larger pool has higher wages rather than a concentrated few hoarded mass sums of wealth.  No government has gone broke by having higher wages, there is nothing to assume that such a thing would happen.  Other nations with higher average wages are having better economic times, and higher standards of living than the United States.  The Post Office, America's largest employer, pays a living wage and they continue to be profitable. The only reason the cost of postage goes up is because of deregulated commodity trading by "free market" capitalists which caused the cost of gasoline to increase greatly (thank you Phil Gramm).

But if you could point to an example of where providing living wages caused a government to go broke I'd love to see that.  After all, you claim to know how the "real world" works so it should be an easy task for you.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: The only thing

EXC wrote:

The only thing that could work is educating everyone to a level where they can be self-sufficient. But you want to give more money and power to governments that fucked up so many people's education in the first place that they have to rely on government handouts and business mandates to survive.

This is way off the topic of John McCain, but I thought it important to answer this.

The main reason our education system is fucked up is because of economic disparity. Our system is designed so that kids of well-off people ("economically successful" ) get a good education, and kids of poor people receive a horrendous education. This is example of economic power translating into political power. It's also one example of how the well-off oppress (for lack of a better word) those in poverty.

Health care is another example. The wage gap is a third.

Do you really want to give everyone a fair chance at the beginning of their lives? No, this isn't a "think of the children" post. Fuck them. I hate kids. All I'm saying is, some people start off in a much better position than others. Social Darwinism (which you are describing, without really saying it) has been disproved many, many years ago.

The only way to ensure that everyone has a chance to be successful is to treat them equally in things that are required to be successful. What you suggest is that their success should depend on the success of their parents, or the philanthropy of the rich. As the correlation for success is tied to the economic well-being of the parents, it appears that those in poverty will tend to stay in poverty, and those with money will continue to enjoy money.

Finally, let me re-state: your ability to "own" anything is a function of society. There's no such thing as a "right," except those which society grants. One's ability to maintain ownership, and to earn wealth, is only as strong as the society in which they live, and is due entirely to society. Society is in the business of maintaining your ability to earn wealth safely. The government is the management of that business. Your taxes are what you have to pay to gain access to the "products" of that business: economic stability, prosecution of the laws, well-educated citizens, communications and transportation infrastructure, and so on.

This is another reason to vote against McCain. He supported Bush's "No Child Left Behind," and generally has voted against most education bills that would actually help.

Want to fix our education system? Start funding schools equally. That's a start. Then start listening to our teachers. (Not the teachers' unions. Our teachers.)

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Kids

nigelTheBold wrote:

EXC wrote:

The only thing that could work is educating everyone to a level where they can be self-sufficient. But you want to give more money and power to governments that fucked up so many people's education in the first place that they have to rely on government handouts and business mandates to survive.

This is way off the topic of John McCain, but I thought it important to answer this.

The main reason our education system is fucked up is because of economic disparity. Our system is designed so that kids of well-off people ("economically successful" ) get a good education, and kids of poor people receive a horrendous education. This is example of economic power translating into political power. It's also one example of how the well-off oppress (for lack of a better word) those in poverty.

Health care is another example. The wage gap is a third.

Do you really want to give everyone a fair chance at the beginning of their lives? No, this isn't a "think of the children" post. Fuck them. I hate kids. All I'm saying is, some people start off in a much better position than others. Social Darwinism (which you are describing, without really saying it) has been disproved many, many years ago.

The only way to ensure that everyone has a chance to be successful is to treat them equally in things that are required to be successful. What you suggest is that their success should depend on the success of their parents, or the philanthropy of the rich. As the correlation for success is tied to the economic well-being of the parents, it appears that those in poverty will tend to stay in poverty, and those with money will continue to enjoy money.

This is another reason to vote against McCain. He supported Bush's "No Child Left Behind," and generally has voted against most education bills that would actually help.

Want to fix our education system? Start funding schools equally. That's a start. Then start listening to our teachers. (Not the teachers' unions. Our teachers.)

 

 

   The "No Child Left Behind" bill I think was intended as a voluntary position.  There was no money earmarked for this program.  If a child spends maybe 50 hours each week in daycare, the parents have that much less time to read, teach, interact with their child.  Both daycare, and schools are asked to spend more time with each child on a volunteer basis, without pay.  Parents of course would do this automatically, or at least most parents.  IMO ... which means little or nothing.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The government would BE the

The government would BE the business - if they made everything the profits would go directly to the government to fund everything.

 

More reasons John McCain is an asshat:

 

1. He supports the war in Iraq. That alone is enough to earn asshat status.

2. He is pro-life. In and of itself that makes him and asshat, twatwaffle and douchecanoe.

3. He is against universal healthcare. Also an automatic asshat.

4. He thinks more drilling will lower the cost of oil. Another asshat and a dunce cap too - especially since he doesn't want to crack down on speculators.

5. He wants to keep Bush's disastrous tax cuts which only help the rich.

6. He doesn't know how to use the internet, FFS!

 

any more?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:2. He is

MattShizzle wrote:

2. He is pro-life. In and of itself that makes him and asshat, twatwaffle and douchecanoe.

 

small correction, he's pro birth, not pro life. With him, once you're born, if you don't follow his line, tough luck, better hope the rocks bust your brain before you feel the pain.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Good point. We should change

Good point. We should change the name to "pro birth" as they don't usually care about actual people - unless they are brain dead or have a terminal disease, then they usually want to keep them alive even against their will. Was he one of those fucktards that tried to keep Terri Schaivo's feeding tube in?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
yes, he was.

yes, he was.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Make that number 7 then.

Make that number 7 then - unless you consider it a special addition to number 2.


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
differences

MattShizzle wrote:

Make that number 7 then - unless you consider it a special addition to number 2.

 

      Better make that number 7 since pro - birth and euthanasia are 2 different things.  We just don't have any say over our bodies.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kay Cat wrote: small

Kay Cat wrote:
 

small correction, he's pro birth, not pro life. With him, once you're born, if you don't follow his line, tough luck, better hope the rocks bust your brain before you feel the pain.

Does McCain agree with Bush in banning all female contraception?  The Bush regime wants to classify items like the pill in the same category as a surgical abortion.  When McCain has been asked about female issues involving reproduction he drew a blank like he was looking for the "any" key when trying to use a computer for the first time (Cindy is the brains in that relationship).


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Telxon

D-cubed wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:
 

small correction, he's pro birth, not pro life. With him, once you're born, if you don't follow his line, tough luck, better hope the rocks bust your brain before you feel the pain.

Does McCain agree with Bush in banning all female contraception?  The Bush regime wants to classify items like the pill in the same category as a surgical abortion.  When McCain has been asked about female issues involving reproduction he drew a blank like he was looking for the "any" key when trying to use a computer for the first time (Cindy is the brains in that relationship).

 

      We use the handheld 'Telxon' at work and more than once I have had new co - workers bring me their telxon and ask "where is the any key".  That you used the very same statement sent a spark of laughter through me.  Thank you!   Hopefully very soon we will be upgrading to the 'Symbol' brand of hand held computer.


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:Kay Cat

D-cubed wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:
 

small correction, he's pro birth, not pro life. With him, once you're born, if you don't follow his line, tough luck, better hope the rocks bust your brain before you feel the pain.

Does McCain agree with Bush in banning all female contraception?  The Bush regime wants to classify items like the pill in the same category as a surgical abortion.  When McCain has been asked about female issues involving reproduction he drew a blank like he was looking for the "any" key when trying to use a computer for the first time (Cindy is the brains in that relationship).

 

from what I hear from some friends of mine in Arizona, yes, he agrees with bans on all forms of female contraception, and most instances of male contraception as well.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kay Cat wrote:from what I

Kay Cat wrote:

from what I hear from some friends of mine in Arizona, yes, he agrees with bans on all forms of female contraception, and most instances of male contraception as well.

Why is it that the ones who don't like the idea of contraception are the same ones who don't want to teach kids about safe sex, allow for abortions, or provide a means of helping support unwanted kids?

Dumb asses.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
yeah

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:

from what I hear from some friends of mine in Arizona, yes, he agrees with bans on all forms of female contraception, and most instances of male contraception as well.

Why is it that the ones who don't like the idea of contraception are the same ones who don't want to teach kids about safe sex, allow for abortions, or provide a means of helping support unwanted kids?

Dumb asses.

 

   And yet another good point !!              


Jim666
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain by fellow POW Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008

"As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States."

 


kenderoth
Superfan
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-25
User is offlineOffline
them there gays

Don't worry guys he's against abortion and gay marriage and was a in a prison camp (which makes him a great military tactition for some reason) so he must be a good caniadtate. Plus he supported chancellor Bush 95% of the time so he's going to take it to them homo liberal democrats.




On the serious side the Obama groupies, the people who actually are political aware of the situation and people that don't want another Bush are all together going to outnumber the jaded religious right. Lastly wtf is with these redneck republicans scared of Obama supposedly taking away their guns?


 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Warren Buffet is for Obama.

Warren Buffet is for Obama. One of the richest (if not so) humans on the planet.

 

Quite an endorsement!

Souces

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think they should replace

I think they should replace the elephant as the symbol for the Republican party - it should be a condom. Because it allows inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I think

MattShizzle wrote:

I think they should replace the elephant as the symbol for the Republican party - it should be a condom. Because it allows inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed.

 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
kenderoth wrote:Don't worry

kenderoth wrote:

Don't worry guys he's against abortion and gay marriage and was a in a prison camp (which makes him a great military tactition for some reason) so he must be a good caniadtate. Plus he supported chancellor Bush 95% of the time so he's going to take it to them homo liberal democrats.

I don't have any military experience but isn't it the point of a soldier not to get caught?  Then again, he says Iraq is a land of peace because there's only about four bombs set off each day.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
kenderoth wrote:Don't worry

kenderoth wrote:

Don't worry guys he's against abortion and gay marriage and was a in a prison camp (which makes him a great military tactition for some reason) so he must be a good candidate.

[...]

McCain's slogan: "C'mon, baby, it's my birthday,"


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I think

MattShizzle wrote:

I think they should replace the elephant as the symbol for the Republican party - it should be a condom. Because it allows inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a sense of security while you're being screwed.

 

good point,but elephants are proper symbols; consider where the term white elephant came from. It'sin reference to white elephants being given as "gifts" that only prove to be burdens to the persons that are given them.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would definitely give Joe

I would definitely give Joe Lieberman mega-asshat status, as he has been pro-Iraq war and is supporting McInsane. He should be expelled from the democratic party or at the very least never get the slightest support from the party again.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I've always voted D ,

Yeah, I've always voted D , but Libber-man is one D I never did like.


kostel25
kostel25's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
Hi there

New member here - hello to everyone.

Hmm I would really have a hard time voting for either candidate this election. While McCain's flaws are rather obvious, Obama is far from perfect. Contrary to most atheists, while I don't think going to Iraq was a good idea, I think a quickie pull out would be even worse given what's happening there at the moment. The issue is not black and white, and, actually, last I heard, the Iraqi government was negotiating a deadline for a pullout anyway, so it's going to happen no matter who gets elected. For those who are entirely focused solely on America's affairs, let me remind you that Russia recently invaded Georgia (a small southern european country) and someone like McCain might be better prepared to handle an international crisis of that proportion shall the Cold War return. The Russians are pissed off and the EU ain't gonna do much about it.

Obama is a very cool guy who arrived to where he is based on merit and brains, as opposed to social status (however I've read that on his mother side he actually is remotely related to Chaney, LOL). His vocal criticism of NAFTA however kinda turned me off a little bit. Protectionism is a very short-sighted approach and can be disastrous in a long term. Free trade helps not just the wealthier partner but also the poorer side. As a Harvard graduate he obviously knows that so why did he lie? To earn a few votes from factory workers?

I have been outside of the United States for 8 years now, and one thing that has come to startle me is America's obsession with pigeon-holing everyone into pro-life/pro-choice boxes as if that was some divine criteria guaranteeing everyone's well being. I personally think that is a very artificial division, designed by political spin-doctors, having to do little with the reality of life. If asked to identify with one position I would refuse to make such a choice, because it is a choice that presupposes too much and deprives you of any alternatives in between.

I think I would vote Ron Paul. Too bad he had so little chances to actually get anywhere.

 

What's the difference between Texas and Saudi Arabia? In Texas they execute you for murder, in Saudi Arabia they excecute you for having a Xmass tree.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ron Paul was

Ron Paul was WWWAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY too far to the right. NAFTA needs to go - how does it help the poor? By having their job shipped away? The trickle down economic idea was proven wrong during the Reagan disaster. I actually would vote for Nader if he could win, but there's no way, so I support Obama 100%. I disagree with McCain on virtually everything and either agree with Obama or am to the left of him on everything. Ron Paul was a nut. NOt only did he not believe in evolution - he also doesn't think global warming is true - therefore he is either stupid or insane. He also wants to give the rich more than the extreme power they already have. Our rgulation of business right now is about a 12 on a scale of 1 to 100. Paul would have put it at a 1. We need it at about an 80.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Voting 3rd party in our

Voting 3rd party in our current system is often like giving your vote to to your least favorite. Might as well not vote, which is also a shame.

Googled Ron Paul. Seems a mixed bag of good and bad. I never really knew a lot about him, or Nader,  whom however, I most always remember strongly agreeing with. To bad Nader ran for pres tho, and liberal dummies voted 3rd party for him, which seems gave Bush the victory over Gore.

Really a Stupid system of ours.  


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
kostel25 wrote:Obama is a

kostel25 wrote:

Obama is a very cool guy who arrived to where he is based on merit and brains, as opposed to social status (however I've read that on his mother side he actually is remotely related to Chaney, LOL). His vocal criticism of NAFTA however kinda turned me off a little bit. Protectionism is a very short-sighted approach and can be disastrous in a long term. Free trade helps not just the wealthier partner but also the poorer side. As a Harvard graduate he obviously knows that so why did he lie? To earn a few votes from factory workers?

Never mind that Obama doesn't favor an immediate pull-out and that the Iraqi government has endorsed his plan for withdrawl I'll focus on the NAFTA comment (although this is a McCain thread).  How does NAFTA help the poor other than creating more of them?  Removing tariffs eliminates job protections by making it more affordable for companies to move jobs overseas since tariffs no longer offset the savings on the cost of labor.

With the employment and investment going overseas there is less in the States.  Since the profit is being made in a different country there is less tax revenue in the States so the shortfall in tax revenue has to be made up by either deficit spending or raising taxes, either eventually costs the consumers more.  The manufacturing jobs that are lost are replaced with lower paying service jobs.  So lower wages, lower investment in the community through tax revenue, higher taxes on the public, increased trade deficits (America was running a trade surplus with Mexico before NAFTA, now it runs a trade deficit), and increased budget deficits.

It's not a matter of making a company profitable, many companies that were running a profit moved manufacturing to a different country while already being profitable.  The purpose was to reduce the cost of labor.  That, in no way, benefits the working and middle classes in the States.  NAFTA needs to go so we can return to an economic policy that benefits America, not foreign countries.


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
Former POW says McCain is "not cut out to be President"

Former POW says McCain is "not cut out to be President"


 



MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Palin's not cut out to be

Palin's not cut out to be dogcatcher.


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
I was listening to a radio

I was listening to a radio show today and an emailer wrote into the host (Diane Reem) and said how disappointed she was that Palin had belittled community service....then she said:

 

"Jesus was a Community Organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor."

 

Got a smile out of me, anyway...


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter,

Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, same rotten stink.

Thanks for the Video nikimoto, some other good ones there too, I will email out ....


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
 I could've started a new

 I could've started a new thread but putting this here instead....

 Just a short clip of the part where Guiliani mocks Obama's 'community organizer' background.

This whole scene disgusts me. 'Patriotism' has turned into a a cartoon caricature, if these people are patriots. I'm ashamed to live in the same country as these people at the moment. I feel like I am, but unfortunately am not, watching a movie about a fictional future where America is peopled with idiots. 

This juvenile approach, barely acceptable for a high school class president election, is eaten up by the Republican crowd...

 

 


kostel25
kostel25's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
Your outlook is rather short

Your outlook is rather short sighted. You are thinking only about small pockets of US factory workers, right here and right now. Yes, in the SHORT RUN they might lose their jobs and would have to be retrained to enter a new or take early retirement, or move to where there are still jobs in the industry. However taxes from those workers' pay are not the only sources for governemnt revenue. Government would attract new revenue that new foreign businesses would bring in. Agreements like NAFTA, and all other deals that promote free trade and lowing of tarrifs are of extreme benefit to the poor elswhere. The US companies moving overseas provide better jobs for the world's poor, raise world wide standard of living, produce goods more efficiently, make bigger profits, thus pay more in corporate taxes. Manufacturing is not the only sector bringing profits. Look at Denmark or the UK. Those countries virually did away with domestic car manufacturing, domestic mining, domestic steel production, and most of heavy industry. Yet they enjoy very high life standards. Why? Because they TRADE, and unobstructed voluntary trade is beneficial to both parties. If it wasn't, it wouldn't happen.

More importantly, free trade agreements would benefit the US consumers, because free trade works both ways. Lowering trade barriers would encourage lots of FDI (foreign direct investment) INTO the US and thus creating MORE jobs in the United States - many of which could be perhaps filled by the re-trained workers who lost thier jobs when the US manufacturers moved to China. What would change is the sector they worked in.  They lower the prices of goods, so that US consumer is not ripped off with artifcially raised priced of domestic goods, and has the choice between imported and domestic goods. If it is too expensive for a domestic manufacturer to produce a good in the US, hey, maybe they should start importing from elswhere. But because of trade barriers they CAN'T, so they manufacture in the US at a very high cost, thus charging a very high price.

I realize US is too big of an economy to do away with manufacturing - but because of technology and other factors it would still hold an advantage over Asia/Latin America to manufacture SOME goods locally. Competition is healthy and keeps the prices low, and world-wide competition is even healthier and keeps the prices very low. It gives incentive to seek out the latest technological advances to produce goods cheaper and at a greater efficiency. In the long run, it benefits evryone.

 

What's the difference between Texas and Saudi Arabia? In Texas they execute you for murder, in Saudi Arabia they excecute you for having a Xmass tree.


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
kostel25 wrote:Your outlook

kostel25 wrote:

Your outlook is rather short sighted. You are thinking only about small pockets of US factory workers, right here and right now. Yes, in the SHORT RUN they might lose their jobs and would have to be retrained to enter a new or take early retirement, or move to where there are still jobs in the industry. However taxes from those workers' pay are not the only sources for governemnt revenue. Government would attract new revenue that new foreign businesses would bring in. Agreements like NAFTA, and all other deals that promote free trade and lowing of tarrifs are of extreme benefit to the poor elswhere. The US companies moving overseas provide better jobs for the world's poor, raise world wide standard of living, produce goods more efficiently, make bigger profits, thus pay more in corporate taxes. Manufacturing is not the only sector bringing profits. Look at Denmark or the UK. Those countries virually did away with domestic car manufacturing, domestic mining, domestic steel production, and most of heavy industry. Yet they enjoy very high life standards. Why? Because they TRADE, and unobstructed voluntary trade is beneficial to both parties. If it wasn't, it wouldn't happen.

More importantly, free trade agreements would benefit the US consumers, because free trade works both ways. Lowering trade barriers would encourage lots of FDI (foreign direct investment) INTO the US and thus creating MORE jobs in the United States - many of which could be perhaps filled by the re-trained workers who lost thier jobs when the US manufacturers moved to China. What would change is the sector they worked in.  They lower the prices of goods, so that US consumer is not ripped off with artifcially raised priced of domestic goods, and has the choice between imported and domestic goods. If it is too expensive for a domestic manufacturer to produce a good in the US, hey, maybe they should start importing from elswhere. But because of trade barriers they CAN'T, so they manufacture in the US at a very high cost, thus charging a very high price.

I realize US is too big of an economy to do away with manufacturing - but because of technology and other factors it would still hold an advantage over Asia/Latin America to manufacture SOME goods locally. Competition is healthy and keeps the prices low, and world-wide competition is even healthier and keeps the prices very low. It gives incentive to seek out the latest technological advances to produce goods cheaper and at a greater efficiency. In the long run, it benefits evryone.

 

 

The QUOTE function is useful for, among other things, responding to something that was 6 posts ago and has nothing to do with the last 5. Just a suggestion.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Clearly, NAFTA has done more

Clearly, NAFTA has done more harm than good to the average American. Free Trade sucks. Of course I'd like to see capitalism eliminated from the world altogether so we're from different worlds.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


kostel25
kostel25's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Clearly,

MattShizzle wrote:

Clearly, NAFTA has done more harm than good to the average American. Free Trade sucks. Of course I'd like to see capitalism eliminated from the world altogether so we're from different worlds.

 

Would you care to back up your claim that "free trade sucks"? Other than the fact that it might initially make small groups of people temporarily unemployed - an issue I addressed in my previous post, you haven't provided any evidence against free trade.

 

What's the difference between Texas and Saudi Arabia? In Texas they execute you for murder, in Saudi Arabia they excecute you for having a Xmass tree.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ever actually meet anyone

Ever actually meet anyone who lost their job to it? Some took very long to get a new job, very few if any found a job that paid as much - either a crappo low pay job in the service industry or an utterly menial job. The only people in the US who benefitted are the rich pieces of shit that run the businesses (and run the country really. ) I still think the majority of CEO's , etc should be executed and their money redistributed to the poor. In some ways I'm happy when I see the stock market down because it means rich people are making less money.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
kostel25 wrote:Your outlook

kostel25 wrote:

Your outlook is rather short sighted. You are thinking only about small pockets of US factory workers, right here and right now. Yes, in the SHORT RUN they might lose their jobs and would have to be retrained to enter a new or take early retirement, or move to where there are still jobs in the industry. However taxes from those workers' pay are not the only sources for governemnt revenue. Government would attract new revenue that new foreign businesses would bring in. Agreements like NAFTA, and all other deals that promote free trade and lowing of tarrifs are of extreme benefit to the poor elswhere. The US companies moving overseas provide better jobs for the world's poor, raise world wide standard of living, produce goods more efficiently, make bigger profits, thus pay more in corporate taxes. Manufacturing is not the only sector bringing profits. Look at Denmark or the UK. Those countries virually did away with domestic car manufacturing, domestic mining, domestic steel production, and most of heavy industry. Yet they enjoy very high life standards. Why? Because they TRADE, and unobstructed voluntary trade is beneficial to both parties. If it wasn't, it wouldn't happen.

Your statement doesn't support the facts.  It's all well and good that some foreigners get American jobs but it isn't in the best interest of America to increase unemployment for the sake of providing foreigners with low income jobs.  In reality the situation for foreign nations, take Mexico for example, isn't much better.  The American jobs they do get are low paying and workers still live in shithole conditions.  The economy hasn't improved for anyone other than the upper classes (much like in America).  Some of those jobs in Mexico have even left because workers in other countries can be exploited for less.  You argue that we must be able to compete with Vietnamese workers who make 20 cents an hour without trade protection.  How can this benefit America?

Seriously it can't.  America loses its tax revenue and has to sell off the commons which was created by the taxpayer after years of Middle Class growth and economic expansion by high taxes and trade barriers which provided good paying manufacturing jobs. 

Using Denmark and the UK helps disprove your position.  Those nations have high taxes which are funneled into infrastructure and social spending like national health care.  It's interesting you mention Denmark because looking at the figures their imports have increased tremendously but their exports haven't.  Agricultural and manufacturing exports have decreased.  So the policies aren't working out for them but let's focus on this country because Denmark and England's increased revenue doesn't mean NAFTA works in this country.

Quote:
More importantly, free trade agreements would benefit the US consumers, because free trade works both ways. Lowering trade barriers would encourage lots of FDI (foreign direct investment) INTO the US and thus creating MORE jobs in the United States - many of which could be perhaps filled by the re-trained workers who lost thier jobs when the US manufacturers moved to China. What would change is the sector they worked in.  They lower the prices of goods, so that US consumer is not ripped off with artifcially raised priced of domestic goods, and has the choice between imported and domestic goods. If it is too expensive for a domestic manufacturer to produce a good in the US, hey, maybe they should start importing from elswhere. But because of trade barriers they CAN'T, so they manufacture in the US at a very high cost, thus charging a very high price.

You fail to realize that foreign companies invest in America for the purpose of increasing their profits.  Now if those companies were investing in products that were exported then more profit would remain in the United States.  However NAFTA has created a larger trade deficit.  Other countries aren't buying what we are making but we are importing those products we used to make here.  Hence more profit is going overseas.  American companies that invest overseas and sell their products back in the U.S. pay a lower tax rate than they would if the goods were made in America.  Throwing more money at a foreign country doesn't create more jobs here.  Any jobs that replace manufacturing jobs tend to be lower paying service jobs.  I doubt anyone will say they are better off with a lower paying job.

In America productivity has continued to increase while wages have remained stagnant.  If you incorporate inflation into that mix wages have actually decreased.  If, by your scenario NAFTA worked, then wages would be increasing.  The only segment that has their wages increasing is the wealthy.  They aren't exactly the ones flipping the burgers or manufacturing whatever it is America manufactures anymore.

What exactly would drive a foreign company to invest in America's labor pool?  If service jobs are needed to serve a domestic market then that would be a necessity.  However, if it is manufacturing then they can do that in their own country with the cheaper labor pool and lower tax rate.  The option would be to lower wages in America and lower taxes.  That doesn't provide the tax revenue to invest in America.  As a result we sell off our Commons because of the lack of ability to pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure.  Public roads become private and we have to pay tolls, lower investment in education means higher tuition costs for the student, etc, or you have bridges collapsing and levees breaking as has been the case of late.  Foreign companies bring manufacturing jobs to America because of the trade barriers.  If Honda wants to sell to a domestic market it is cheaper to build the cars here to get around the tariffs (hence the purpose of the tariff).  However, without the tariff they can still build here by taking advantage of the low wages that develop as a result of bad trade policies.  You don't exactly see clothing manufacturing jobs flocking back to America.

Quote:
I realize US is too big of an economy to do away with manufacturing - but because of technology and other factors it would still hold an advantage over Asia/Latin America to manufacture SOME goods locally. Competition is healthy and keeps the prices low, and world-wide competition is even healthier and keeps the prices very low. It gives incentive to seek out the latest technological advances to produce goods cheaper and at a greater efficiency. In the long run, it benefits evryone.

If competition keeps the prices low why are people paying $100 for a pair of Nikes that cost a few dollars to manufacture?  The cost was the same when they were made in America but making them in Vietnam means more profit for the shareholders.  You can go to the store and buy American made clothing for the same price as foreign made clothing.  Competition didn't lower the price, it just adjusted the profit the companies made.  Companies like American Apparel are still profitable despite being located in Los Angeles and having its employees make $12.50 an hour plus benefits, and continues to expand.

And to add, when companies have huge layoffs not only do those workers lose their jobs but those people employed to support those workers lose their jobs as well.  People who manufacture uniforms, serve food, provide daycare, etc. no longer can rely on their steady paychecks.

The end result has been millions of lost jobs, double digit unemployment, huge trade deficits, a massive $9.5 trillion budget deficit, a stock market that is doing as well as it was in 2000, high inflation, and so on.  John McCain won't lift a finger to change the situation, he has already promised to make matters worse as it is his goal, and the neo-con's goal, of using disaster capitalism in order to make a fortune.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I'm with Matt. The super

I'm with Matt. The super rich rushing to more riches trample on the backs of the workers that make all wealth possible. "EAT THE RICH" as an old wise loving saying goes .... Make security, and the happiness of the people the first priority. The rich as a rule, don't fucking care about we peasants. Why allow them, why trust them ??? I am just saying a cut off point of personal wealth needs to be established.

Geezz people. Who the fuck told us we can't afford universal health care, super education, fair pricing of housing and basic commodities and utilities? WHO? WHY? Who is hiding the wealth of our blood, sweat and tears?

Fuck our massive EXTREME military of the rich as well. Punny IRAN, N. KOREA are nothing to fear militarily. People are people, we are all the same, the whole world over. Anyone who utters promotion of war and fear is the ENEMY, sick, and should be arrested.

Rage Against The Machine - Take The Power Back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW_QgDXL65U&feature=related

  Are we appeasing SUCKERS or what?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The rich. Off with their

The rich. Off with their motherfucking heads.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Nail the Pope to a cross,

Nail the Pope to a cross, that DEVIL ....


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Geezz

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Geezz people. Who the fuck told us we can't afford universal health care, super education, fair pricing of housing and basic commodities and utilities? WHO? WHY? Who is hiding the wealth of our blood, sweat and tears?

Those who say we can't afford it are the ones making the profit without providing the actual services.  Who wants universal health care?  Too many to list.  Who doesn't want it?  Those who provide insurance.  Universal health care means those CEO's bringing home million dollar paychecks will have to get a job and can't get rich by denying people care.  Consumers would no longer have to pay that 20% that goes to profit for shareholders.

Free education?  Like France, Cuba and Norway?  People who make money providing student loans won't make money so we can't afford free education.  Heck, John McCain wants to get rid of the little free education we have and rely on vouchers.  That way we'd have to pay more for education (bigger student pool) and the private and religious schools can get supported by taxpayer money (more so than they are now).

It was the Republicans that did away with the usury laws.  Usury, the sort of thing the Bible condemns.  Now companies can charge huge interest rates at will.  Miss one payment, now your 6% interest rate goes up to 30%.  Can't afford it and want to declare bankruptcy?  Too bad, the Republicans changed the law and now you have to pay anyway.  Bringing back the usury protection laws means credit companies can't make tens of billions and only can make billions.

Those who say we can't afford progress are those who getting richer (they are already rich) by making everyone poorer.  No wonder Republicans hate Obama's tax plan so much.  Obama will remove Bush's tax cuts and bring the tax rates to the level Clinton had them (remember those years of prosperity?).  So the rich will get taxed more and the working and middle class will get a tax cut.  But the Republicans say we can't afford that.  Who is we?


kostel25
kostel25's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Ever

MattShizzle wrote:

Ever actually meet anyone who lost their job to it? Some took very long to get a new job, very few if any found a job that paid as much - either a crappo low pay job in the service industry or an utterly menial job. The only people in the US who benefitted are the rich pieces of shit that run the businesses (and run the country really. ) I still think the majority of CEO's , etc should be executed and their money redistributed to the poor. In some ways I'm happy when I see the stock market down because it means rich people are making less money.

 

Yes, I have, I have met British miners who lost their jobs in the 80's when the Tories were doing away with mining because it was more cheaper for the UK to import coal than to dig their own. They were mad as helll at the time but today no one is complaing about Thatcher's policy. In the long run it was profitable for the UK.  People losing their jobs in selected sectors is inevitable. Nobody guarantees job stability because markets always change, but with diverse markets open to international trade there will always be more jobs than with, closed, protectionists ones which must only rely on the resources they have. Unless of course you wish to stick with the kind of employment we can find in centrally planned economies where sensless projects are artificially created just to keep people employed, but the actuall productivity is next to nothing, like it was behind the Iron Curtain up untill 1989.

 There are a number of policies a governemnt can implement to ease the transition for such people. For the older ones it can offer early retirement. For the younger ones it can offer retraining schemes so that they can acquire new skills and get new jobs. I agree that governments should step in with policies to help those affected by changes in the economy, rather than avoid the changes which in the long run bring about aggregate benefits.

What's the difference between Texas and Saudi Arabia? In Texas they execute you for murder, in Saudi Arabia they excecute you for having a Xmass tree.


kostel25
kostel25's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
 D-cubed wrote:Your

 

D-cubed wrote:

Your statement doesn't support the facts.  It's all well and good that some foreigners get American jobs but it isn't in the best interest of America to increase unemployment for the sake of providing foreigners with low income jobs.  In reality the situation for foreign nations, take Mexico for example, isn't much better.  The American jobs they do get are low paying and workers still live in shithole conditions.  The economy hasn't improved for anyone other than the upper classes (much like in America).  Some of those jobs in Mexico have even left because workers in other countries can be exploited for less.  You argue that we must be able to compete with Vietnamese workers who make 20 cents an hour without trade protection.  How can this benefit America?

If the American jobs were no better, Mexicans wouldn't take them. Poor foreigners voluntarily take foreign jobs because they are better than the existing alternative. It may not be much, but they do raise the local wage standard. If more than one international company hits a poor region, they will compete for local workers trying to entice them with better work conditions. The economy has improved, since the implementation of NAFTA 1994. The minimum wage keeps on rising 5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. GDP stayed in good shape as well - it was slightly down in 2007 - only 2% - but that was not because of NAFTA/world trade but because of careless lending by the US banks which caused the "credit crunch". Economical business cycles will happen regardless of NAFTA.

Quote:

Seriously it can't.  America loses its tax revenue and has to sell off the commons which was created by the taxpayer after years of Middle Class growth and economic expansion by high taxes and trade barriers which provided good paying manufacturing jobs. 

And with free trade America has new sources of tax revenue created by the foreign investors who chose to move to America. Foreign investment CREATES more American jobs, and thanks to lowring of barriers, FDI is easier than ever. Here is some data from the OCO Global Ltd. "In 2007, announced investment created more than 107,000 jobs in the US, representing $46 billion of investment, a 20% increase over 2006. The States which attracted the most investment were California, New York and Texas, with Florida and Pennsylvania also featuring in the Top 10 of preferred destinations for foreign companies expanding in the US. The leading investor countries into the US are Japan, UK and Germany and major investors include Toyota, Tesco,Vodafone and BAE Systems"

Quote:

Using Denmark and the UK helps disprove your position.  Those nations have high taxes which are funneled into infrastructure and social spending like national health care.  It's interesting you mention Denmark because looking at the figures their imports have increased tremendously but their exports haven't.  Agricultural and manufacturing exports have decreased.  So the policies aren't working out for them but let's focus on this country because Denmark and England's increased revenue doesn't mean NAFTA works in this country

 

Fine. What you described only means that Denmark has a temporrary trade deficit - which wouldn't not be a rarity, and you are right - it's rather irrelevant to NAFTA.

Quote:
You fail to realize that foreign companies invest in America for the purpose of increasing their profits.  Now if those companies were investing in products that were exported then more profit would remain in the United States.  However NAFTA has created a larger trade deficit.  Other countries aren't buying what we are making but we are importing those products we used to make here.  Hence more profit is going overseas.  American companies that invest overseas and sell their products back in the U.S. pay a lower tax rate than they would if the goods were made in America.  Throwing more money at a foreign country doesn't create more jobs here.  Any jobs that replace manufacturing jobs tend to be lower paying service jobs.  I doubt anyone will say they are better off with a lower paying job.

No, I don't fail to realize that foreign (actually - not just foreign - ALL companies) invest for the purpose of increasing their profits. Why else would anyone invest? For charity? Other countries aren't buying what America is making because there ste STILL trade barriers between the US and the EU, for instance. Let me give you a real life example - I live in the UK. DVDs here are damn expensive. I'd rather go online to WAL-MART and buy a bunch of DVDs from the US, but because of trade barriers, I CAN'T, or at least not without paying a very high premium which then makes it cheaper for me to buy them here, in London. This is a simplistic example but it represnt the principle very well.

Quote:

In America productivity has continued to increase while wages have remained stagnant.  If you incorporate inflation into that mix wages have actually decreased.  If, by your scenario NAFTA worked, then wages would be increasing.  The only segment that has their wages increasing is the wealthy.  They aren't exactly the ones flipping the burgers or manufacturing whatever it is America manufactures anymore.

You sure about that? I've got the numbers for the federal minimum wage for those years:   $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Do the math, that is fully keeping up with inflation, and those are minimum wages.

Quote:

What exactly would drive a foreign company to invest in America's labor pool?  If service jobs are needed to serve a domestic market then that would be a necessity.  However, if it is manufacturing then they can do that in their own country with the cheaper labor pool and lower tax rate.  The option would be to lower wages in America and lower taxes.  That doesn't provide the tax revenue to invest in America.  As a result we sell off our Commons because of the lack of ability to pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure.  Public roads become private and we have to pay tolls, lower investment in education means higher tuition costs for the student, etc, or you have bridges collapsing and levees breaking as has been the case of late.  Foreign companies bring manufacturing jobs to America because of the trade barriers.  If Honda wants to sell to a domestic market it is cheaper to build the cars here to get around the tariffs (hence the purpose of the tariff).  However, without the tariff they can still build here by taking advantage of the low wages that develop as a result of bad trade policies.  You don't exactly see clothing manufacturing jobs flocking back to America.

Textiles is actually pretty much the only sector that was hit as a result of NAFTA. According to Hufbauer (2005), overall, NAFTA has not caused trade diversion, aside from a few select industries such as textiles and apparel, in which rules of origin negotiated in the agreement were specifically designed to make U.S. firms prefer Mexican manufacturers. The World Bank also showed that the collected NAFTA imports' percentage growth was accompanied by an almost similar increase of non-NAFTA exports. Perhaps one way of increasing the US government tax revenue is to stop spending it on Iraq, and as you said, invest it in infrastructure and healthcare instead.

Quote:

If competition keeps the prices low why are people paying $100 for a pair of Nikes that cost a few dollars to manufacture?  The cost was the same when they were made in America but making them in Vietnam means more profit for the shareholders.  You can go to the store and buy American made clothing for the same price as foreign made clothing.  Competition didn't lower the price, it just adjusted the profit the companies made.  Companies like American Apparel are still profitable despite being located in Los Angeles and having its employees make $12.50 an hour plus benefits, and continues to expand.

Nikes cost $100 (do they really??) because that's what consumers are willing to pay for them. Simple as that. The market sets the price. If the cusumers are willing to pay $200, that's what they will charge. It's not evil, it's just profit making. The reason that the Nikes cost so much is that there isn't ENOUGH competition to bring the price down.

Quote:

And to add, when companies have huge layoffs not only do those workers lose their jobs but those people employed to support those workers lose their jobs as well.  People who manufacture uniforms, serve food, provide daycare, etc. no longer can rely on their steady paychecks.

The end result has been millions of lost jobs, double digit unemployment, huge trade deficits, a massive $9.5 trillion budget deficit, a stock market that is doing as well as it was in 2000, high inflation, and so on.  John McCain won't lift a finger to change the situation, he has already promised to make matters worse as it is his goal, and the neo-con's goal, of using disaster capitalism in order to make a fortune.

 

I think you're exaggerating. The unemployment rate is NOT double digit. For August 2008 it was 6.1% (including teenagers), which, considering that we are in a recession, is not bad at all. Trade deficit is nothing new, most countries run a trade deficit. I agree that McCain is incompetent to be President and I trust that Obama will do much better. But mostly, I truly trust that all that anti-NFTA talk was just a vote winning gimmick. After all, it was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who pushed for the ratification of NAFTA.

 

 

 

What's the difference between Texas and Saudi Arabia? In Texas they execute you for murder, in Saudi Arabia they excecute you for having a Xmass tree.


kostel25
kostel25's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:The rich.

MattShizzle wrote:

The rich. Off with their motherfucking heads.

 

Would that include the anonymous sponsor of RRS who donated a house so the founders can run this website and fight religious idiocy?

 

 

What's the difference between Texas and Saudi Arabia? In Texas they execute you for murder, in Saudi Arabia they excecute you for having a Xmass tree.