Liberals need to change their language

[1776]

Strange all the "Wall Street" movies focus on the 80s, what is up with that dumbfuck?

The economic mess that happened late in Bush's term goes back to the CRA put in motion by Carter and Clinton, idiot. The banks got involved with risky mortgages because Fannie and Freddie were pushing everyone to own a home in the US.

Hell, even after the collapse you scumbags are going after local banks today if they aren't giving enough risky mortgage loans to minorities just like the 70s to the implosion.

It's clear you're an idiot.

The US economy exploded in the 80s under trickle down economics....while today the liberal strategy of stealing from the rich to fund community projects/green projects has failed causing the most people to be out of the workforce since the 1930s.

It is as if you idiots live on another planet and just arrived today.

The economic boom of the 1980s was caused by massive deficit spending and investment in the military industrial industry. 'Trickle down' was a terrible failure. If Reagan hadn't increased taxes by closing loop holes, borrowed at unprecedented levels and spent it all on the military industry, we never would have come out of the 1983 recession.

Our present economic problems were caused by the Bush administration and the lack of regulation of the financial industry.

Under Obama, we may not have recovered as well as we had hoped, but we're in much better shape than where Bush left us.

 

[Londoner]

The system protects owners and investors of large corporation through subsidies and trade policies that allow one group of Americans to profit off shipping the jobs of another group of Americans to freedom-hating nations like China and Taiwan. This is government's way of redistributing income upwards. But it gets worse: most of these large corporations exploit loopholes and the legislative powers of their Washington puppets in order to pay zero taxes. Couple this with the fact that the wealthy only pay 15% on their main source of income, capital gains. Meaning: the family making only 75k pay more in taxes than their wealthy counterparts. And whenever shit goes wrong with the economy, guess who gets bailed out?

Point is: everybody knows that wealth gets redistributed upwards. The problem with liberals is that they have been unable to make these arguments.

 

[1776]

Well shitbag....let's start with the Keystone pipeline....

What jobs have EPA regulations killed and how?

 

[occupied]

I wonder what it would look like if you were able to overlay the number of job killing regulations from the EPA and other agencies on that bottom graph. Ya think there might be correlation between the two? Thanks uncle sugar.

The level of regulation today is no greater than it was from the 1970s - 1990s. What has changed is that deregulation has been stopped. This has pissed the wealthy people off, so they've shut down the American economy.

Bullshit, if you want a strong middle class there is only one way to have it, bring manufacturing jobs back. Service job have never paid well and will never pay well, EPA started operations in 1970 and they along with OSHA, NLRB and others have driven manufacturing offshore. Have these agencies done some good, yep, but nothing the states couldn't have accomplished just as well with fewer job loses.

In short, you mean that paying workers well and keeping them safe and not dumping toxic crap in the air and water costs too much to compete with polluted, exploitative shitholes. We all know this, it's just a crying shame we can't be more like China.

 

[KNB]

What jobs have EPA regulations killed and how?

Well shitbag....let's start with the Keystone pipeline....

How many people were going to be hired to build that pipeline? And how many of those people were going to be laid off as soon as the pipeline was built? And of those laid-off workers, how many of them would reap the billions in profits generated by the pipeline?

Do you think at all?

 

[OKTexas]

The level of regulation today is no greater than it was from the 1970s - 1990s. What has changed is that deregulation has been stopped. This has pissed the wealthy people off, so they've shut down the American economy.

Bullshit, if you want a strong middle class there is only one way to have it, bring manufacturing jobs back. Service job have never paid well and will never pay well, EPA started operations in 1970 and they along with OSHA, NLRB and others have driven manufacturing offshore. Have these agencies done some good, yep, but nothing the states couldn't have accomplished just as well with fewer job loses.

In short, you mean that paying workers well and keeping them safe and not dumping toxic crap in the air and water costs too much to compete with polluted, exploitative shitholes. We all know this, it's just a crying shame we can't be more like China.

How'd I know some commie mother fucker would go to the extremes, what was it you didn't under fucking stand that the states could have done just as good a job and retained jobs? Damn another fucking fool.

 

[1776]

So "some workers" have to find a new project once the project is complete....your strategy is to never do the project so they won't work? They shouldn't get paid for a year working to build the pipeline and some keep a long term job to maintain the pipeline...they should all just not have a job.

You are fucking insane.

Using your logic....construction workers should not be employed since their project eventually is built thus they have to find a new project.

What jobs have EPA regulations killed and how?

Well shitbag....let's start with the Keystone pipeline....

How many people were going to be hired to build that pipeline? And how many of those people were going to be laid off as soon as the pipeline was built? And of those laid-off workers, how many of them would reap the billions in profits generated by the pipeline?

Do you think at all?

 

[KNB]

The EPA doesn't actually move jobs overseas. Corporate greed moves jobs overseas because they want to pay far less to exploited foreign workers who aren't protected by America's laws.

Aside from that, Nixon created the EPA which Republicans say moves jobs overseas, and America legalized "Marihuana" during World War II which replaced foreign imports and brought jobs back to America, so why do Republicans support Nixon's War on Drugs with "Marihuana" as the number one target?

If we legalize "Marijuana" again like we did during World War II, then manufacturing jobs will come back to America like they did during World War II.

 

[KNB]

Well shitbag....let's start with the Keystone pipeline....

How many people were going to be hired to build that pipeline? And how many of those people were going to be laid off as soon as the pipeline was built? And of those laid-off workers, how many of them would reap the billions in profits generated by the pipeline?

Do you think at all?

So "some workers" have to find a new project once the project is complete....your strategy is to never do the project so they won't work? They shouldn't get paid for a year working to build the pipeline and some keep a long term job to maintain the pipeline...they should all just not have a job.

You are fucking insane.

Using your logic....construction workers should not be employed since their project eventually is built thus they have to find a new project.

That's not even close to my logic. Construction workers have another project lined up to continue to pay them for continuing work. The pipeline would be constructed, the majority of workers laid off, and all profits from then on would go to the petroleum companies and not the workers or the public. It only benefits the corporations and no one else. When the pipeline ruptures, it will be the taxpayers and the environment that pay the heaviest price, not the corporations, as we have repeatedly seen time and time again.

Why is that difficult to understand?

 

[1776]

The EPA doesn't actually move jobs overseas. Corporate greed moves jobs overseas because they want to pay far less to exploited foreign workers who aren't protected by America's laws.

Aside from that, Nixon created the EPA which Republicans say moves jobs overseas, and America legalized "Marihuana" during World War II which replaced foreign imports and brought jobs back to America, so why do Republicans support Nixon's War on Drugs with "Marihuana" as the number one target?

If we legalize "Marijuana" again like we did during World War II, then manufacturing jobs will come back to America like they did during World War II.

 

[occupied]

Bullshit, if you want a strong middle class there is only one way to have it, bring manufacturing jobs back. Service job have never paid well and will never pay well, EPA started operations in 1970 and they along with OSHA, NLRB and others have driven manufacturing offshore. Have these agencies done some good, yep, but nothing the states couldn't have accomplished just as well with fewer job loses.

In short, you mean that paying workers well and keeping them safe and not dumping toxic crap in the air and water costs too much to compete with polluted, exploitative shitholes. We all know this, it's just a crying shame we can't be more like China.

How'd I know some commie mother fucker would go to the extremes, what was it you didn't under fucking stand that the states could have done just as good a job and retained jobs? Damn another fucking fool.

That's what we used to have before the EPA, a patchwork of conflicting state regulations that left many places so polluted they still are not safe to live in and the government having to fund clean-ups rather than prevention.

 

[1776]

Again....stupid fuck.

Your answer to not let the construction workers "work" and earn some money since the pipeline project will eventually end and some of them will have to find a new project.

Well...why the hell should someone get a job building a house??? The "evil" banks and realtors are going to make money off selling that house.....OMG!!!!

How many people were going to be hired to build that pipeline? And how many of those people were going to be laid off as soon as the pipeline was built? And of those laid-off workers, how many of them would reap the billions in profits generated by the pipeline?

Do you think at all?

So "some workers" have to find a new project once the project is complete....your strategy is to never do the project so they won't work? They shouldn't get paid for a year working to build the pipeline and some keep a long term job to maintain the pipeline...they should all just not have a job.

You are fucking insane.

Using your logic....construction workers should not be employed since their project eventually is built thus they have to find a new project.

That's not even close to my logic. Construction workers have another project lined up to continue to pay them for continuing work. The pipeline would be constructed, the majority of workers laid off, and all profits from then on would go to the petroleum companies and not the workers or the public. It only benefits the corporations and no one else. When the pipeline ruptures, it will be the taxpayers and the environment that pay the heaviest price, not the corporations, as we have repeatedly seen time and time again.

Why is that difficult to understand?

 

[SmedlyButler]

"How'd I know some commie mother fucker would go to the extremes, what was it you didn't under fucking stand that the states could have done just as good a job and retained jobs? Damn another fucking fool".

Just like that commie Richard Nixon who brought it into existence with an Executive Order in 1970?
Clean air and water are a requirement of commie motherfuckers and the intellectually challenged right wing .

 

[1776]

Asswipe....conservatives aren't against "clean air, food and water." Hell we even like clean bedsheets, even though scum like you say otherwise.

We have a clue that scum like you use the EPA to take down companies/industries that you don't like. The coal industry has created cleaner and safer energy today with coal yet the EPA is all over them like black in your underwear.

The EPA is shutting down coal companies here with more regulation while China is polluting the planet on the other side of the world. China doesn't give a crap about the EPA.

You scumbags are blocking the Keystone pipeline which forces Canada to use rail and trucks to ship their product to the US. So the cost of shipping drives up the cost of the good on the consumer and trains derail like in North Dakota earlier this month, good job twit.

It would be a lot safer, cleaner and cheaper to ship the fossil fuel via the pipeline compared to hundreds of trucks and train cars....

"How'd I know some commie mother fucker would go to the extremes, what was it you didn't under fucking stand that the states could have done just as good a job and retained jobs? Damn another fucking fool".

Just like that commie Richard Nixon who brought it into existence with an Executive Order in 1970?
Clean air and water are a requirement of commie motherfuckers and the intellectually challenged right wing .

 

[KGB]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

First, you use the term 'fair' in your first statement. I used the term fair also. What do you have against fairness? fairness does not mean equal, it means fair.

Second, it is nonsense to say that there is a relationship between income and a persons productive value. Conservatives love to pretend that it's a perfect world where those who work that hardest make the most. THAT IS PURE HORSESHIT!

If that were true, doctors would make more money than anyone else. They have the greatest amount of education and provide the greatest service. Not to mention the years of internship and residency. So if income was based on hard work and merit, you'd have to agree that anyone who makes more than a doctor is a thief.

Third, it is blatantly false to say:

"businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else."

There is not an unlimited amount of money. Currency represents wealth. Wealth is created by productive labor i.e. the creation of physical items of value. Wealth is created by workers. It is finite.

finally, mediocre people do 99% of the productive work in this world. Those people you consider to be so gifted are usually only gifted at thievery.

First, I don't know who you worked for, but every job I've ever had the work force has directly tied my compensation to either potential profitability of my efforts, my responsibility level or my productivity. This is truism that has been the case in every non-union environment out there. So to clarify on the fairness part, if a CEO is responsible for bringing in millions of dollars of revenue to a company & I am only responsible for bringing in thousands, I really don't have an issue if he or she is paid more than me. He or she has skills sets & connections I currently do not have. He or she should be compensated accordingly & I do not begrudge him or her for it. It just motivates me to work a little harder, learn a little more so that I can be more productive, thus increasing my profitability, thus increasing my income level.

Second, doctors are well compensated. They are also well regulated and they have to deal with increasing liability since everyone is sue happy. But if you want to use that logic, our military members should be the highest compensated of all. All the years of training, postings in rathole parts of the world & of course, being put in harm's way. However, there is a currency there which is worth more than money, so I won't say any more.

Third, allow me to clarify further. I meant to say there is an unlimited potential for money. Yes, every company is constrained by a budget, but that doesn't mean there is a cap for earnings potential. A good CEO understands this & seeks out opportunities where ever he or she can find them. If they provide that revenue to the company, then they are rewarded for their efforts through suitable compensation. Apologies for not making that clear up front.

Finally, you are correct, 99% of the work is done by mediocre people in this world. However, it is that 1% that provides the opportunity for the other 99% to do the work in the first place. They did build that through their own ingenuity, through their own hard work & efforts. I do not begrudge them in the least....

 

[SmedlyButler]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

The wealth accumulating potential of Corporations and those at the top of those Corporations has been artificially enhanced by influence driven favorable regulations.
Does CEO X work 400 times harder or smarter than his average employee Y"

SB

 

[OKTexas]

In short, you mean that paying workers well and keeping them safe and not dumping toxic crap in the air and water costs too much to compete with polluted, exploitative shitholes. We all know this, it's just a crying shame we can't be more like China.

How'd I know some commie mother fucker would go to the extremes, what was it you didn't under fucking stand that the states could have done just as good a job and retained jobs? Damn another fucking fool.

That's what we used to have before the EPA, a patchwork of conflicting state regulations that left many places so polluted they still are not safe to live in and the government having to fund clean-ups rather than prevention.

No the government took it upon itself to fund the clean up just as they are taking it upon themselves to force some of the cleanest coal power plants ever to close. Once bureaucracies are formed they are virtually impossible to contain or get rid of because the primary job of any bureaucrat is to insure the continued existence of the bureaucracy, it's called job security. Most of the feds alphabet agencies should be abolished and their responsibilities turned over to the states.

 

[KNB]

There's no such thing as clean coal, and the Keystone XL pipeline is unnecessary and a colossal environmental risk. The oil companies want more profits so they're using the line that the EPA is hurting jobs by not letting them build the pipeline and Republican voters are buying that lie because they don't have any idea what the issue is.

More jobs will be created by the Federal legalization of marijuana than by building another oil pipeline.

 

[KGB]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

The wealth accumulating potential of Corporations and those at the top of those Corporations has been artificially enhanced by influence driven favorable regulations.
Does CEO X work 400 times harder or smarter than his average employee Y"

SB

CEO X is rewarded because of the revenue potential he/she brings in for the company. That usually far exceeds what worker Y is expected to. That is why CEOs are compensated accordingly..

 

[KGB]

There's no such thing as clean coal, and the Keystone XL pipeline is unnecessary and a colossal environmental risk. The oil companies want more profits so they're using the line that the EPA is hurting jobs by not letting them build the pipeline and Republican voters are buying that lie because they don't have any idea what the issue is.

More jobs will be created by the Federal legalization of marijuana than by building another oil pipeline.

I can't wait to read the explanation to this "logic".....