Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Navy seals perform a legitimate Constitutionally mandated government function. They don't sponge off the taxpayers. A strip club owner is in fact a "maker." He provides a service that a lot of people want. The fact that some people don't like the service he provides is irrelevant. I don't like cigarettes, but I don't object to people buying them or corporations selling them.
However, when it comes to most other government employees, they produce nothing of value to me. The department of Education, for instance, is staffed entirely by useless parasites.
The Dept of Education is one of the checks and balances of government. So a batshit crazy state like...say, Mississippi, cant do bad shit to black kids in that state's school system. And LOTS of government employees provide "a legitimate, Constitutionally mandated government function". Some of those are by STATE Constitutions. Wow, see how that works? You cant pick and choose which government employees are "takers" and which aren't. Either government work is or isnt "taking". Which is it?
As for the strip club and cigarette owner, you say both provide a service or product that, while you and many may not like it, they are free to do it so you have no problem with it. So I assume you are ok with abortion being legal right? And in states where gay marriage is legal, I assume you are ok with some churches providing that service....even if you dont like it. Right?
You are one ignorant SOB. The Dept of Ed is not a check and balance in government. The Dept didnt exist until 1979. I guess there were no checks or balances on gov't prior to that.
The Dept of Education is one of the checks and balances of government. So a batshit crazy state like...say, Mississippi, cant do bad shit to black kids in that state's school system. And LOTS of government employees provide "a legitimate, Constitutionally mandated government function". Some of those are by STATE Constitutions. Wow, see how that works? You cant pick and choose which government employees are "takers" and which aren't. Either government work is or isnt "taking". Which is it?
As for the strip club and cigarette owner, you say both provide a service or product that, while you and many may not like it, they are free to do it so you have no problem with it. So I assume you are ok with abortion being legal right? And in states where gay marriage is legal, I assume you are ok with some churches providing that service....even if you dont like it. Right?
You are one ignorant SOB. The Dept of Ed is not a check and balance in government. The Dept didnt exist until 1979. I guess there were no checks or balances on gov't prior to that.
Thats right. Dont you think all the chaos from integration movement in the 50's, 60's, 70's had something to do with the Feds......er, I mean, we the people's elected reps decided that there should be oversight of the states approach to education so we can avoid some of that mess? Yep. Sounds about right.
Exactly right. Which is why it is so disgusting that the right wing tries to define a citizen's worth to society through simply how much they make in salary, and how much they pay in taxes, and whether or not they recieve a check of any form from the government.
just so we're clear on this, day-traders are parasitically skimming off our retirement savings, so they would literally be takers.
Bullshit. "Taking" requires the use of force. Day traders don't force anyone to sell them stocks or buy stocks from them. Taking by one private citizen from another is against the law. We call it theft, robbery or fraud. Only the government can take, so the only takers are people who use the government to do their bidding.
I've was reading about yet another "takers" comment some idiot right winger made. And I thought about that jackass Romney and his 47% comment that so many right wingers agreed with. And I came to a conclusion.
There is no such thing as "Makers vs Takers". Just positive contributors vs negative contributors. You are either adding something positive to society, or, adding something negative. There really isn't much in between. For example:
Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a Navy SEAL would be a taker. He makes a modest salary, probably under 40K. He lives off a government paycheck. He creates ZERO jobs. Thats right. A SEAL would be a taker. So would a teacher. She doesnt create one single job, and also lives off government checks. But they contribute a lot of positive to our society. They are Contributors.
Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a strip club owner is a "maker". He opens a business. Creates dozens of jobs. He doesnt make his money off govt checks. But, he is a negative contributor to society. Filth, drugs, violence, morals. But in the right wing's definition of worth, he is worth more than a SEAL or teacher.
A trust fund baby who grows up pampered in life, then gets a job as, say, well, trading stocks and living off that is a "maker" to Republicans. He doesnt really create jobs, he indirectly does by buying stocks maybe. But he earns incredible wealth by, well, being born wealthy and owning stock. And he pays high taxes and doesnt get govt checks. But does he make a positive contribution to society? Maybe. Depends what he does with his free time.
You may have uber wealthy "makers" who poach smaller companies, and end up slashing more jobs than they actually create. A net negative due to their harm to so many people's lives out of greed.
You may have someone like, say, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. A millionaire coach, who has lived almost his entire life off government checks at public universities (Mich. State, LSU, Alabama), and he creates 0 jobs. BUT...look at how many young mens lives he has touched, by instilling discipline, work ethic, a structured environment, a drive to succeed. Those lessons are worth more than money can define. A net positive.
So, Im personally redefining the "makers vs takers" nonsense. Its Contributor vs Non-Contributor. Someone is either adding something good to America, or they are not. Thats what really matters.........not just the number that is on your tax filing.
Thats right. I've always agreed with that. When I told the GOP to fuck off, everyone assumed I became (or always was) a raging liberal. Not so. The GOP just got to whacky and radical for me, and I now enjoy mocking them and watching that party crash and burn.
The GOP today is kinda like a football team who got beat, and the opposing coach ran up the score, like the great college coach Steve Spurrier did at Florida. They would bitch and whine about him running up the score, when in reality, they should've just stopped his teams.
The GOP bitches about what the left is doing. When in fact, they should've just not gotten so radical as to scare off half the country. The GOP is where it is because of themselves. Not because of Democrats or "takers".
yea....and anybody now who doesn't agree with you is now a "righty"....which is what die hards do on both sides.....so either....
1....you were never a Republican.....always were a Democrat.....
2....you have gone from being a Staunch Rep. to a staunch Dem.....which i doubt happens to often.....
3....your just full of shit.....
like i said earlier Buc.......your bullshit is as about as convincing as Dean and Dudlys is....
Why shouldnt I? The radical right wing movement and its members are disgusting to me. Not the people, like me, who still tend to hold a lot of right of center views but also told the GOP to fuck off. But the people who still worship Glenn Beck, the GOP, and the rest of the bullshit that the Republicans have fed people for the last 20 years.
So yeah, if a person is still ignorant enough to remain a staunch Republican supporter, then I'm gonna talk shit to them.
The Dept of Education is one of the checks and balances of government. So a batshit crazy state like...say, Mississippi, cant do bad shit to black kids in that state's school system. And LOTS of government employees provide "a legitimate, Constitutionally mandated government function". Some of those are by STATE Constitutions. Wow, see how that works? You cant pick and choose which government employees are "takers" and which aren't. Either government work is or isnt "taking". Which is it?
As for the strip club and cigarette owner, you say both provide a service or product that, while you and many may not like it, they are free to do it so you have no problem with it. So I assume you are ok with abortion being legal right? And in states where gay marriage is legal, I assume you are ok with some churches providing that service....even if you dont like it. Right?
You are one ignorant SOB. The Dept of Ed is not a check and balance in government. The Dept didnt exist until 1979. I guess there were no checks or balances on gov't prior to that.
Thats right. Dont you think all the chaos from integration movement in the 50's, 60's, 70's had something to do with the Feds......er, I mean, we the people's elected reps decided that there should be oversight of the states approach to education so we can avoid some of that mess? Yep. Sounds about right.
just so we're clear on this, day-traders are parasitically skimming off our retirement savings, so they would literally be takers.
Bullshit. "Taking" requires the use of force. Day traders don't force anyone to sell them stocks or buy stocks from them. Taking by one private citizen from another is against the law. We call it theft, robbery or fraud. Only the government can take, so the only takers are people who use the government to do their bidding.
It isn't rocket science. If one person has the ability to extract value from something that someone else owns, and thus leaves it depreciated, that is obviously taking.
Bullshit. "Taking" requires the use of force. Day traders don't force anyone to sell them stocks or buy stocks from them. Taking by one private citizen from another is against the law. We call it theft, robbery or fraud. Only the government can take, so the only takers are people who use the government to do their bidding.
It isn't rocket science. If one person has the ability to extract value from something that someone else owns, and thus leaves it depreciated, that is obviously taking.
And the gov't does that all the time through both taxation and regulation.
But what does that have to do with capitalism or the private sector?
I've was reading about yet another "takers" comment some idiot right winger made. And I thought about that jackass Romney and his 47% comment that so many right wingers agreed with. And I came to a conclusion.
There is no such thing as "Makers vs Takers". Just positive contributors vs negative contributors. You are either adding something positive to society, or, adding something negative. There really isn't much in between. For example:
Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a Navy SEAL would be a taker. He makes a modest salary, probably under 40K. He lives off a government paycheck. He creates ZERO jobs. Thats right. A SEAL would be a taker. So would a teacher. She doesnt create one single job, and also lives off government checks. But they contribute a lot of positive to our society. They are Contributors.
Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a strip club owner is a "maker". He opens a business. Creates dozens of jobs. He doesnt make his money off govt checks. But, he is a negative contributor to society. Filth, drugs, violence, morals. But in the right wing's definition of worth, he is worth more than a SEAL or teacher.
A trust fund baby who grows up pampered in life, then gets a job as, say, well, trading stocks and living off that is a "maker" to Republicans. He doesnt really create jobs, he indirectly does by buying stocks maybe. But he earns incredible wealth by, well, being born wealthy and owning stock. And he pays high taxes and doesnt get govt checks. But does he make a positive contribution to society? Maybe. Depends what he does with his free time.
You may have uber wealthy "makers" who poach smaller companies, and end up slashing more jobs than they actually create. A net negative due to their harm to so many people's lives out of greed.
You may have someone like, say, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. A millionaire coach, who has lived almost his entire life off government checks at public universities (Mich. State, LSU, Alabama), and he creates 0 jobs. BUT...look at how many young mens lives he has touched, by instilling discipline, work ethic, a structured environment, a drive to succeed. Those lessons are worth more than money can define. A net positive.
So, Im personally redefining the "makers vs takers" nonsense. Its Contributor vs Non-Contributor. Someone is either adding something good to America, or they are not. Thats what really matters.........not just the number that is on your tax filing.
It isn't rocket science. If one person has the ability to extract value from something that someone else owns, and thus leaves it depreciated, that is obviously taking.
And the gov't does that all the time through both taxation and regulation.
But what does that have to do with capitalism or the private sector?
The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.
just so we're clear on this, day-traders are parasitically skimming off our retirement savings, so they would literally be takers.
Bullshit. "Taking" requires the use of force. Day traders don't force anyone to sell them stocks or buy stocks from them. Taking by one private citizen from another is against the law. We call it theft, robbery or fraud. Only the government can take, so the only takers are people who use the government to do their bidding.
It isn't rocket science. If one person has the ability to extract value from something that someone else owns, and thus leaves it depreciated, that is obviously taking.
It isn't rocket science. If one person has the ability to extract value from something that someone else owns, and thus leaves it depreciated, that is obviously taking.
And the gov't does that all the time through both taxation and regulation.
But what does that have to do with capitalism or the private sector?
The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.
It isn't rocket science. If one person has the ability to extract value from something that someone else owns, and thus leaves it depreciated, that is obviously taking.
And the gov't does that all the time through both taxation and regulation.
But what does that have to do with capitalism or the private sector?
The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.
And the gov't does that all the time through both taxation and regulation.
But what does that have to do with capitalism or the private sector?
The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.
No one extracts value from out retirement accounts unless the professionals we have managing those accounts let it happen. There can be no willing buyers, unless there are willing sellers. Day traders are gamblers, gambling that they can outguess the markets. Some win and some lose. They buy no stock that someone else is not willing to sell at the price offered, and they sell no stock that someone else is not willing to buy at that price.
And the gov't does that all the time through both taxation and regulation.
But what does that have to do with capitalism or the private sector?
The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.
They do nothing of the sort. If you don't want to sell them your stock, no one if forcing you to. If you don't want to buy stock they're selling, no one is forcing you to. day trading does not have a net negative impact on the average price of the market.
The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.
No one extracts value from out retirement accounts unless the professionals we have managing those accounts let it happen. There can be no willing buyers, unless there are willing sellers. Day traders are gamblers, gambling that they can outguess the markets. Some win and some lose. They buy no stock that someone else is not willing to sell at the price offered, and they sell no stock that someone else is not willing to buy at that price.
If a group of people are playing poker, and some of them leave with more money, then others are left with less money. Again, not rocket science.
If one of the players is a professional gambler, and the people he is playing against are blindfolded, that would be a more accurate analogy, though.
The topic was about day-traders, and how they extract value from our retirement accounts, and leave them depreciated.
They do nothing of the sort. If you don't want to sell them your stock, no one if forcing you to. If you don't want to buy stock they're selling, no one is forcing you to. day trading does not have a net negative impact on the average price of the market.
Really? Is this really that complicated? Money is just like any other form of energy. It isn't possible to create value out of nothing. If they have gained something, that gain came from somewhere. It came from other investors.
They do nothing of the sort. If you don't want to sell them your stock, no one if forcing you to. If you don't want to buy stock they're selling, no one is forcing you to. day trading does not have a net negative impact on the average price of the market.
Really? Is this really that complicated? Money is just like any other form of energy. It isn't possible to create value out of nothing. If they have gained something, that gain came from somewhere. It came from other investors.
"Some people cannot look at a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking the fat man got something from the thin fellow." -Reagan.
Intel creates value out of sand, literally. Microsoft creates value literally out of ideas. You are simply misinformed.
