Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (2): loomiss, lulzformalaysiaair, anonymous(13).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #11423 - brettd (10/24/2012) [-]
plan for fixing country:

1. Make US energy independent. cut out all this "renewable energy" crap. Start drilling wherever possible, regardless of environmental issues, and bring in that pipeline from canada.
2. Give big corporations huge tax brakes; that way, jobs will return to America at a crazy fast rate, and manufacturing will start to go up for once.
3. Lower taxes for everyone and level the playing field. Everyone pays the same amount (preferably between 20-30%).
4. Get rid of all this goverment aid. 47% of this country doesn't pay income taxes, and its killing the economy. let people know that they either get off their ass and look for a job or there'll be hell to pay. Minimize welfare and other programs.
5. Champion small buisness. Offer them benefits on loans, and if possible, cut taxes.
6. Make an effort to cut trade with China. Our countries' relationship can't completely be disassembled, but it can be minimized. Expand trade with smaller countries, such as those in Latin America, as Romney has suggested.
7. Get out of the middle east completely. Severe ties with Israel. Take action only if nuclear weapons are involved.
8. Get rid of Obamacare.
9. Cut the budget dramatically. Spend only what needs to be spent.
User avatar #11570 to #11423 - Ruspanic (10/25/2012) [-]
I'll take a shot at this.

1. "Make US energy independent" is a lot easier said than done, and though it will certainly require us to take advantage of our resources, we must also develop and utilize renewable energy. If you don't care about the environment (it's not like that affects quality of life or anything), at least you should be worried about running out of resources.
2. This is highly idealistic. If you're going to give more tax breaks to corporations, they should at least be conditional - first you return the jobs, then you get the tax breaks. Tax benefits are not the only reason jobs are outsourced: the fact is that workers in South Asia and China and Latin America will work for considerably lower wages than Americans, and in third-world countries corporations can get away with a lot more than they can in the US. Just look at Apple and Foxconn.
3. This sounds good on the surface, but it fails to account for the subjective value of money. The costs of living and sustenance change little with income and wealth. A billionaire would be able to live comfortably if he was taxed at 20% - hell, he'd be fine if we taxed him at 90% (which I am not advocating). On the other hand, 20% of a poor family's income might be their electric bill, or their rent. Even though the percentage of income in dollars is the same, to the poor each dollar matters a lot more.
4. Most of the 47% are working poor. The reason they don't pay income tax is because they're too poor to qualify for it, for good reason (see point 3). Of those who are unemployed, the majority are retired seniors. The welfare and entitlements system can certainly be improved, but the government should still maintain a minimum standard of living for those who struggle to support themselves.
5. Sure. Not too controversial.
6. Why? China may be a rival and a currency manipulator, but it is not an enemy.
Free trade benefits both parties, and economic interdependence makes conflict less likely.
User avatar #11573 to #11570 - Ruspanic (10/25/2012) [-]
7. Seems a bit idealistic. We should certainly quit our habit of military intervention, but we still have economic and security interests in the Middle East. At least until we achieve energy independence, we need foreign oil. We should also maintain ties with Israel not only because it is the only free democracy in the region, but also because it is the main counterbalance to an increasingly hostile and dangerous Iran. US support of Israel helps to deter attacks on Israel, which in turn prevents the whole region from pretty much bursting into flames. And the stability of the region does matter to us, because we cannot risk anti-American militants taking over the governments and gaining control of militaries or WMDs. Also the drone strikes against al-Qaeda should continue (though we should be more careful not to kill innocents).
8. Sure. I don't agree with Obamacare either, but remember that repealing it does not absolve us of the responsibility to fix the problems of our healthcare system. Do you have an alternative proposal?
9. That's very vague. "What needs to be spent" is subjective, and there are some non-essential programs that nevertheless do a lot of good and help to maintain our standard of living. We will inevitably have to cut spending on both defense and entitlements, but we have to be careful about it and consider not only the costs of programs but also the impact cuts will have on Americans. Unfortunately I do not feel qualified to comment on where the specific cuts should be made.
User avatar #11538 to #11423 - themasterdebater (10/24/2012) [-]
One Percenter Detected

1. Sure, maybe would help us for the next 5 years, but when oil runs out we are FUCKED because we very primitive technology and R&D capabilities
2. Jobs aren't coming back. That doesn't happen, there's not an entire huge workforce of thousands of people moving back and forth to different countries. Also, most the huge corporations are greedy bastards who will just keep a good chunk of the money, that's exactly what happened in the Bush years
3. We need to pay off debt, and there's not nearly enough spending cuts to do so, unless you want to Ron-Paul-Style cut the military, which I'm guessing you don't want to do.
4. You can't just tell people to get the fuck up and start working. There are more people than there are spots to fill the jobs, not everyone who's on Welfare is a lazy fuck.
5. Agreed
6. If we cut trade with China, than where do we get all the shit they sell at Walmart? We have to buy it from nations like Japan and Mexico. Problem is, their shit is a lot more expensive. Yet even more debt. Also, I would be very wary of pissing off China.
7. I wouldn't cut ties with Israel, because the whole "we don't wanna attack Israel because America will intervene" thing is a very strong deterrent to escalation.
8. See Yardie's comment
9. What are you cutting? The only way to dramaticaly cut the budget like you want is to make huge cuts to defense. Again, judging by your political views, I'm guessing you're not for that.

Summary: In this guy's world, the US has massive debt even in comparison to today's, everyone in the world hates us, and everyone in the country hates the government because you cut all the programs they rely on. Learn how the world works
User avatar #11670 to #11538 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
1. For the next five years? You're retarted. We don't have to worry about running out of oil for the next few hundred years. There's enough oil in the US to support itself for much longer than you're going to be alive.
2. Um, pretty sure if that were true then our economy would be permanently screwed. And yes, there are huge work forces of thousands of people out there in other countries. They're called factories, and we need them to come back to the US in order to coherce job gorwth. We can do that by bribing big corporations with tax breaks.
3. We are never going to pay off a cent of our debt. It's useless to try. What we need to be doing is stemming the growth of the debt in order to keep it under control.
4. There are plenty of jobs out there, but people in our society today feel like they'd rather sit back and count their welfare money rather than go out and look for those jobs.
6. Obviously we can't completely cut ties with China, but we can minimize our relations with them, because as Romney has pointed out, they've been screwing us left and right. There are plenty of other countries that sell shit that's cheap. And I think it would be worth paying a little more for our iphones if it meant bringing back manufacturing as well as thousands of jobs (number 2).
7. I could give a shit about Israel. Nothing in the middle east has ever done us an ounce of good. The only threat to us that exists in the middle east is radicals and terrorists, and we can handle them without having the amount of manpower that we have in the middle east right now.
9. That's crap. Go look up some of the insane shit the government wastes money on every day.

Summary: In this guy's world, we're all entitled to money we haven't earned, and we should all just sit back on our asses and let the government take care of us until the whole country goes bankrupt
User avatar #11467 to #11423 - oxan (10/24/2012) [-]
1. Where's the long term sustainability?
2. That doesn't happen. Corporations are posting record profits even in this supposed 'economic hard times'.
3. Lower taxes are nice, but currently unsustainable. And level the playing field? No. That's not fair at all. Rich people should be taxed more.
4. People need assistance. Simply telling them to get off their arse isn't the answer.
5. Agreed.
6. You should really be trying to avoid any country that lacks adequate labour laws. I actually support protectionism.
7. Yup.
8. Healthcare is a right, and any system that decreases costs and increases availability and maintains (or improves) quality is fine by me. I don't know the details of Obamacare, so I won't comment
9. So, cutting defence spending? Sounds appropriate.
User avatar #11666 to #11467 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
1. Long term sustainability? there's enough oil in the US and canada alone to support all of North America for the next hundred years. The reason we can't get to it is because the democrats won't stop fawning over the environment.
2. I didn't right this perfectly. What i meant was, offer these corporations huge tax brakes, large enough to allow them to turn a greater profit, IF they start doing business here.
3. Rich people should be taxed more? So even if you do well, you should be penalized for it? No. Success is not a crime. Success is what America is all about. We should not be taking away the hard-earned money of the upper class and giving it to the government and people who don't deserve it. The upper class are the people who employ and pay the wages of the 99%. They're vital to the survival of the economy.
9. No. Cutting all the useless crap the goverment spends money on.
User avatar #11708 to #11666 - oxan (10/26/2012) [-]
1. I wouldn't mind seeing a source for the oil supplies. And oil isn't the only concern. Coal is too damaging to the environment, and new sources need to be considered. Perhaps solar panels? Thousands of jobs would be created simply for introduction of the panels.
2. Why not put tariffs on imports, encouraging companies to build factories in the US? More jobs.
3. Success is not a crime, and they're not being penalised for success. But their money is most definitely NOT hard-earned. They do not do the hard labour required to make their fortune. Getting others to work for you and reaping the benefits is most definitely not hard-earned.
9. Your defence budget is beyond ridiculous. What other useful crap do you suggest? Inb4 social services 'because the private sector and the market will fix things'
User avatar #11722 to #11708 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
1. The environment is fine. We do not have to worry about if for the time-being, and doing so is a waste of time. Obama already tried investing huge amounts of money into renewable energy, and it wasn't nearly beneficial enough to justify the money and resources we put into it.
2. Oh yeah, why not add some more taxes? We don't already have enough of those.
3. So putting your life-savings into a company, risking your entire future, and spending years trying to build it from the ground up isn't hard work? Rich people don't just have money handed to them. They start out like you and me, but after years of working their asses off, they manage to climb their way to the top. And while they're there, they also happen to be the ones employing the rest of us. What if you started a business and managed to strike it rich? What would you say then?
9. This is America. We have the most powerful military in the world, period. We don't need to put anymore money into it, but cutting it the way the democrats want to would be foolishness. Instead, let's stop spoon-feeding 47% of the country.
User avatar #11860 to #11722 - oxan (10/28/2012) [-]
1. The environment /isn't/ fine. The attitude of, 'oh, we don't need to worry about it yet,' is ridiculous and that's what got us into this trouble in the first place. You don't realise that entire islands are being sunk as the oceans warm, do you?
2. The last time you tried deregulation, we got on the road to this shitstate we're in.
3. There are few rich people who have started companies themselves nowadays. Most are just the offspring. For those that do, they still make significant profits. Do you think it's justified a lot of them have more money they could spend in several lifetimes? There's no need for that, and they most likely started the company with tax breaks, and government support, even as simple as police presence ensuring their products aren't stolen and factories are destroyed. They've been supported by a system that they should give back into. AND they still make obscene profits! And once they get to the point where they're considered rich, they're not working anymore, and simply sit in their offices as their workers toil away, taking hardly anything of what they should be owed.
9. That 47% don't even pay taxes because they're poor as shit. You remove welfare and they'll simply get poorer and poorer with NO opportunities. And then, guess what, you have all these people with no income and no support that need to surive. That's how criminals are created.
User avatar #11869 to #11860 - brettd (10/28/2012) [-]
1. The environment is too fine. No concrete evidence has ever been offered that global warming or anything like it even exists.
2. No. You can't blame the entire economic situation on the Bush kim jongistration simply because he was president when this thing started. The economy had already been on a downhill slide. We got ourselves into this mess.
3. This entire statement is so ignorant it's not even funny. Almost everyone in the upper class has worked harder than you ever will in your life. Just because it's not physical labor doesn't mean it's not work. The idea that everyone out there who' got money just inherited it form their parents is obscene. People don't just hand their children piles of money. And yes, I do think it's justified that someone could have that much money, because that's the whole idea of America. What's the point of working if you can never be as successful as you want? Why should I have you give you money that I earned just because you're too lazy to go earn it yourself?
9. 47% of America doesn't pay taxes because so many of them just live off of the system, which is far too easy to abuse thanks to Obama. If half of the country was to poor to even pay taxes, there's no way America would still be number one in the world. But they're not too poor. They just have no problem sitting around on their asses while the government takes money away from hard-working people and hands it to them. But nobody has a problem with it because the government has painted the rich as money-grubbing hitlers who piss on the dreams of the poor, which is absurd.
User avatar #11954 to #11869 - oxan (10/30/2012) [-]
1. There's been radical change (that is, moreso than what it should be) since the introduction of coal as an energy source in the Industrial Revolution. Cut the denial shit.
2. I'm not blaming Bush, I never was. I was blaming deregulation that began c. 1980. Isn't it also ironic that deregulation caused the Soviet Union to collapse?
3. The Cold War-era education is still strong over there, isn't it? You have no idea how socialist redistribution of wealth works. It's equitable distribution, not equal. Thus, if you don't work, you won't get shit. It just means that you get paid for the full value (or nearer to the full value) for your work. Your entire statement is ignorant capitalist bullshit about the wealth trickling down.
9. When nearly 50% of the country is claiming unemployment benefits, I think it's a bit too far to say they're all just lazy. It's a little far-fetched, honestly. And like I said... socialist redistribution of wealth and a welfare state don't simply hand away money if you don't want to work. If you /can't/, you get benefits, but laziness is not an excuse. 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat' is a core tenet of socialism. And quite frankly, a majority of rich people are cuntbags who feel they're better than the lower class.
User avatar #13782 to #11954 - brettd (11/08/2012) [-]
No, it's not far-fetched at all. The country isn't even close to being 50% unemployed, meaning the majority of people on those benefits don't need to be on them. Obviously we're not socialist, but the principals that liberals employ nowadays are the same that exist in a socialist republic. The more you make, the more you pay, and pretty soon everyone makes the same amount no matter what they do. It's not that the upper class can't sustain the extra tax hike, but if we allow it to go on, one day we'll turn around and realize we've become socialist. But the main difference between the beliefs of Obama and his cronies and those who support socialism is that Obama believes it's only the rich who should be punished. Those who have worked hard and achieved success should have to pay to support those who haven't, and nobody is going to speak out against it because Obama has managed to convince the common man that the rich are posion to the country and haven't actually earned their success. In reality, the average upperclassmen works harder in a day than you will in a lifetime. This blind hatred for the wealthy (such as that last statement you made) is born out of laziness and envy.
User avatar #11482 to #11467 - Yardie ONLINE (10/24/2012) [-]
1. I agree that there should some foresight, but you have to understand our current economic situation. Sitting on savings as a consumer nation isn't the plan, we need to make a switch as a country to production again, but with all these regulations it just won't happen.
2. Corporations are cutting corners and some are even receiving government subsidies. The US spends over 100 billion in corporate welfare in a year, and this doesn't include loopholes etc. If we were to get rid of corporate welfare and loopholes altogether while cutting and keeping a flat tax on big business, we will be a lot better off. Also some of these "profits" go to employees and capital.
3. Then why don't we cut spending? we spend almost 20% of GDP on social programs alone. "Rich people should be taxed more" is such an ignorant statement because they do pay more even with a flat tax %, and again cutting corporate profits is also cutting capital.
4. People do need assistance. We're giving assistance to a much higher % of people that actually need it though. Here in California it's really bad. I see too many people (friends, family, strangers) sitting around doing nothing, waiting for their welfare check so that they can blow it all in a week. A buddy of mine lives off of welfare and grows on the side. He makes more than me working 40 hours just off of his welfare checks. TLDR: Feeding the fucking problem isn't the answer either.
5. Obviously you don't because you want the government to tax them out the ass while allowing corporations to reap the benefits.
6. Tariffs don't help a consumer nation Mr. Herbert Hoover.
7. Yes
8. Do you even know how or why Healthcare was invented? What EVER entitled ANYBODY to receive free healthcare? And FYI nothing is going to decrease costs unless you want to lower the quality. But you want to increase the quality? That doesn't make sense. You have to spend more to increase quality. It's not like the doctors are sitting going "HOW CAN I FUCK MY CUSTOMER TODAY?"
User avatar #11667 to #11482 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
You'll be receiving your metal in the mail in a few days time.
User avatar #11612 to #11482 - oxan (10/25/2012) [-]
1. You can't disregard the environment so easily. It's better to invest heavily in renewable energy sources now so that we're not faced with an even worse issue of lack of energy in the future.
2. You don't post record profits by cutting corners. And no, profits don't go to employees. That's why they're called profits.
3. Because many public policies can't afford budgets cuts. 'Rich people should be taxed more' isn't an ignorant statement. They should. Very few rich people have actually earned their wealth themselves, thus it's not really there's to hoard. Besides, they were taxed a lot more in the past and lived comfortably in their mansions. Now they're just being greedy.
4. Isn't unemployment rampant in the US currently? There's no where else to go for those people if there's no available jobs. But no one should simply live off welfare willingly. 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat.'
5. No, small businesses should receive tax cuts. Big businesses shouldn't. At all.
6. Yes, yes they can, as long as you don't go totalitarian in what you're putting tariffs on.
8. Chances are you'll need healthcare sometime in your life. You need it to live. You're entitled to it. I meant anything that decreases an individual's cost. Increasing the quality is preferable, but difficult, therefore not compulsory. As long as quality doesn't decrease.
9. Only? Maybe not. I'm sure there's some other areas that are unnecessary. Now, as I'm not American, I don't really care enough to look at your government's entire budget and there it's spent.

There's plenty of reasoning behind what I said. It can work as long as the planners don't fuck shit up. But it's entirely probable. And as I said, I'm not American.
User avatar #11626 to #11612 - Yardie ONLINE (10/25/2012) [-]
1. We don't have a strong enough economy to supply investment into renewable energy. The government tried it and failed completely. It would be best to let the market figure it out. That way it's more efficient and we don't have to pay bureaucrats to do a half assed job.
2. They have record profits because the government is ruining competition by hurting small businesses with all these taxes and allowing corporate tax breaks and inflation is going crazy.
3. You obviously don't know what i'm saying. Cut unneeded spending. There's a shitload of it. Also a company that earns more money naturally invests in capital and employees. This means more jobs, higher pay, and more production. This helps the economy. Taxing businesses more just because they profit more is like telling them "You've made enough money, stop producing things."
4. Unemployment is rampant because of our entitled society. There's so many free jobs out there that nobody will take because they think they're above them or just don't want to work hard to try and get a position somewhere. We also have practically no industry because it's all outsourced because of all the regulations here, so we're missing out on a lot of employment opportunities there too.
5. You're oversimplifying things.
6. No, they can't. Herbert Hoover tried this in a few ways during the Great Depression. It backfired. You're thinking like its early 1900 and America is this huge industrial force. We're a consumer nation. We have no production and as long as all these regulations exist we never will.
8. That's why you have private healthcare. It's a lot cheaper. Look at college tuition before and after the government got involved. It's ridiculous. You're either dirt poor or filthy rich, otherwise no education for you. Government involvement doesn't work.
9. We spend 25% of GDP. It doesn't matter what it's on that's way too much.
User avatar #11710 to #11626 - oxan (10/26/2012) [-]
1. The market doesn't have magical healing powers, friend. And why would they be interested in renewable energy? It's too expensive for them and they can't make the same profits they could through coal, for example. The problem with the market is they only care about profits, as opposed to sustainability.
2. Yet they can't create new jobs? You actually think that it's right for them to post record profits, yet not be creating more jobs? That is, of course, if they're not posting record profits because they're decreasing their workforce and increasing the workload of individual workers, as they have done in the past. I agree that small businesses should be given tax breaks, but all these corporate tax breaks are the result of deregulations and then further fearmongering by corporations.
3. You said social programs. How am I meant to know what you mean specifically? Taxing companies increases income for the state, which in turn enables tax breaks for the creation of companies, and funding for public sector jobs. This creates new jobs which increases incomes and buying capacity. This is ensured, unlike in the free market, where companies will simply increase individual workloads for as long as possible.
4. I'm not familiar with sociological issues in the US, so I won't comment on the former. The latter, however, is ridiculous. If you want US manufacturing to compete with outsourcing, you're basically saying you want just and fair labour laws abolished. Regulations are in place for a reason: to ensure that labourers aren't exploited.
5. No more than you with your belief that the market will figure things out right away. Movement towards a freer market is the problem.
6. Protectionism can encourage companies to open factories in the nation they're attempted to sell to in order to avoid tariffs.
8. Private healthcare is sometimes inaccessible. I know it is to my family.
User avatar #11712 to #11710 - Yardie ONLINE (10/26/2012) [-]
6. Yes all those factories we have here in the states for production. There's a reason it didn't work during the Great Depression. Repeating the same mistake is retarded. Unless you're suggesting the corporations take down their factories overseas and rebuild here in a costly manner, which they probably won't do. Even if they did the cost of all the goods made here would raise because the corporations can't hire a bunch of cheap labor to get shit done, therefore decreasing the supply of goods sold in America anyways.
8. The price of healthcare back when it was founded was incredibly cheap. Kaiser actually first started healthcare by striking deals with industrial companies in the 1930/40s. It was basically free for the workers (but of course they had maybe a couple cents knocked off their pay). By actually forcing people to buy healthcare, you obviously increase the demand to the entire nation, which drives up prices. By having the government provide healthcare, you not only lose money (which in turn lowers the quality) to the bureaucrats, but there are many other inefficiencies. If you lived in America all you would need to do is walk into the DMV and look around to see what I'm talking about.
User avatar #11859 to #11712 - oxan (10/28/2012) [-]
6. What companies don't recognise is that if you spend more on workers' wages, they have more spending money, thus they're able to spend more on consumer goods. But that's a long term investment, and companies don't think about the long term. They only consider short term profits.

I never suggested companies take down their factories overseas, because they still have a near global market for countries without import taxes.
8. You said previously that 'we haven't had a free market since the 20s', yet, despite regulations, healthcare was affordable and cheap. The contradictions...

Regardless: the healthcare system in the United States sounds radically different from Australia's, so I have no experience in your system.
User avatar #11711 to #11710 - Yardie ONLINE (10/26/2012) [-]
1. If somebody were to invent a clean, renewable, efficient energy source within even the next hundred years they would be a billionaire. And they would deserve it. Throwing money at it doesn't help, it hurts. Do you not understand how much is wasted when the government tries shit like this? We're just not ready yet, and I can guarantee a free market would get it done faster and cheaper.
2. They are able to cut corners because these small businesses that would act as competition for labor don't exist. Without another place for these employees to go the employers can cut wherever they want. It's not right, but the thing is they don't care. The only way to fix it would be to force employers to compete for employees, which doesn't happen in our modern day welfare society. I'm not saying to give corporations tax breaks, I'm saying tax fairly without loopholes so small businesses and corporations can compete on equal footing. A corporation will be able to acquire more loopholes than a small business will because they have the money. They can buy in to politics. We remove the ability to make tax breaks and that problem is solved. However, we would have to lower the tax rate in order to make up for this.
3. You obviously don't understand how a free market economy works if you think that in the past they have increased the workload of the workers. Why do you think the friggin assembly line was created? It was to make work easier so the owners could save money and have people work longer hours without working them to the bone.
4. What "just" and "fair" labor laws? All of these labor laws hurt more than they help. Even the minimum wage hurts. Why do you think there's been a growing gap between the rich and the poor since the 1930s? I guarantee to you that it's not the market's fault because we haven't had a free market since the 20s.
5. "movement towards a freer market is the problem"? How so? We've been moving AWAY from a freer market and only have had more and more problems
User avatar #11858 to #11711 - oxan (10/28/2012) [-]
5. That's absolute bullshit, friend. You're constantly deregulating markets, and it's about to happen even more in Australia, too.

' In the early 1980s, one explanation dominated public discussion and public policy: The cause of the middle-class crisis was government, and its solution was less government. Regulations, taxes, programs for the poor, preferences for minorities, spending on schools--indeed, the very size of government--had wrecked the economy by wasting money and stunting intitative, by rewarding the sluggards and penalizing the talented. The answer was to get government "off the backs" of those who generate economic growth. "Unleash the market" and the result would be a "rising tide that will lift all boats, yachts and rowboats alike."

This explanation for the economic doldrums won enough public support to be enacted. Less regulation, less domestic spending, and more tax cuts for the wealthy followed. By the 1990s, however, the crisis of the middle class had not eased; it had just become more complicated.'

'The richest families had soared to new heights of income, the poorest families had sunk after 1970, and the middle-income families had gained slightly. But this slight gain was bitterly misleading. The middle class managed to sustain modest income growth, only by mothers taking jobs and fathers working longer hours. Also, the slight gain could not make up for growing economic insecurity and parents' anxiety that key elements of the "American Dream"--college education, a stable job, and an affordable home--were slipping beyond the grasp of their children. And so the phrase "the disappearing middle class" began to be heard.'

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s5877.html
#11857 to #11711 - oxan (10/28/2012) [-]
1. Such technologies exist, but they face fierce competition from oil companies. Don't try and tell me you don't think the oil industry is corrupt and despicable and constantly holding back moves to ease our reliance on oil.
2. What you're saying doesn't even make sense. If there's no competition, they would simply lower wages and say: 'you're either going to work here and earn a pitiful income, or no income at all.' But they can't, and rightfully so. You're kidding yourself if you think that the United States is a welfare state. It's far from it (refer to pic related). I agree that we should tax fairly, but that doesn't mean lowering taxes on all business, just small business. And if you don't want companies lobbying politicians, I hope you support more regulations.
3. The assembly line was created to increase production by focusing on simple, repetitive tasks, as opposed to skilled tasks. It's cheaper to pay someone without an education, firstly. Secondly, they did work their workers to the bone. Working days were in excess of 12 hours (can't remember the exact figure) in most factories. And if they weren't exhausting their workers by such long shifts, why did they so fiercely oppose reductions in working days?
4. Labor laws hurt more than they help? Would you enjoy working 6 days a week in factories with almost no safety precautions, being whipped constantly, for over 12 hours to only be paid a few cents before returning to your home in the slums? It is quite clearly the market's fault, because when a free market was introduced in the Industrial Revolution those were the working conditions. And they still continue today. And don't bullshit by saying people wouldn't endure those conditions, because they did, and continue to do so in some parts of the world.
User avatar #11483 to #11482 - Yardie ONLINE (10/24/2012) [-]
9. Really? ONLY cutting the defense budget? Do you have any idea how much money flows into the government and how much actually goes back out ? Do you know how much we actually spend and on what? If we spend 900 billion on schooling why does the Department of Education only receive 60 billion of it? Look at the history of Social Security. Look how much we spend on Social Security. Why is it that nobody received a Social Security check until 2 years after we started taxing for it? There's A LOT more problems with spending than just the defense budget.


I know it's been a lot to read and a huge wall of text, but you really can't just blatantly state points as you did. There's no reasoning behind anything you said. You simply say "This is the way that makes us happy" without looking at it carefully, and that's part of the problem with this country.
#11479 to #11467 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/24/2012) [-]
Nobody knows all the details of Obamacare. It's so damn long and it was passed before anyone even had the chance to read it all.
User avatar #11557 to #11479 - Ruspanic (10/25/2012) [-]
You know you can read it online, right? Just because it's already been passed doesn't mean the details are now forever unknowable.
User avatar #11453 to #11423 - zatchattack (10/24/2012) [-]
In regardes to number 1, you're right! Who needs the enviroment? Lets just suck up all the non-renewable resources until they're gone, and destory the very Earth we live on, great idea!

In regards to number 4, you do realize that not all the 47% are lazy and jobless? Because that 47% includes veterans, people having two jobs to support their familes, and people born into poverty.

In regards to number 3, it doesnt make it fair if everyone paid the same percentage amount of taxes. Paying 10% more taxes would be easier for a family making 200'000$ a year, than one making 20'000$ a year. Of course more money would be asked of the 200'000$ household, but they would stil have more than the 20'000$ household.
User avatar #11661 to #11453 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
1. there are litterally enough natural resources to sustain your great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren. Our generation does not havve to worry about it.

4. You can not possibly be so ignorant as to believe that all 47% of those people are veterans or single parents. Sure, there are people who need extra help, but the cold hard truth is that THE MAJORITY OF THAT 47% ARE LAZY FUCKS.

3. This is where this country has just become a complete joke. We should not be penalizing people for being successful. The whole idea of America is that no matter who you are or where you come from you have just as much oppurtunity as everyone else. But the Obama kim jongistration has demonized the wealthy and made them out to be money-grubbing ass holes who piss on the dreams of the lower class just so they can feed off of their success.
User avatar #12248 to #11661 - zatchattack (11/04/2012) [-]
1. Sure, but the means of getting said resources will cause great damage to the enviroment. If we have your way there wouldn't be a very habitable enviroment for our great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren.

4. I agree, but we shouldn't take away the program because of the people who actually need it. I agree we need to reform the program so people who actually needs welfare get its.

3. Who says we're penalizing them? We're just asking them to pay a few more percentage points based off of yearly income, the houses making over 200'000$ a year wouldn't be hurt. And most wealthy people, either inherit their wealth, or are back up by a moderately wealthy family. People born where I live hardly ever become very successful because of the low income family they were born into. If I were born into a high middle class suburban family, my chances of success are obvisouly much higher. The wealthy business owners do anything to lower the income of there laborers, by outsourceing factories. But you're also right not all wealthy people ar evil like people want to believe, but how is asking a family that makes 200'000$ or more to pay just a bit more on yearly taxes, than a family that makes around 20'000$ more or less bad?
User avatar #11495 to #11453 - Yardie ONLINE (10/24/2012) [-]
But what does that family making 200,000 a year do compared to the family making 20,000?

The family making $200,000 is most likely employing (maybe even employing the 2nd family) or are doing something else very beneficial to society like performing surgeries or something of that sort. They deserve to live an easier life because the family making $20,000 is flipping burgers or selling things door to door.

With the family making $200,000 they are paying the 2nd family's entire yearly wages in taxes alone.
User avatar #11518 to #11495 - zatchattack (10/24/2012) [-]
Not everyone on this world can be successful, there will always be the ricer and the poorer. People can be born into poverty, with disabilitys. I understand completely what your saying, and I agree, but I also believe there has to be programs in place in order to help such people like that.
User avatar #11435 to #11423 - vulcanvulcan (10/24/2012) [-]
The main problem I have with what you said is number 4. I'm about to go to sleep so i won't explain it myself but ill link something explaining the whole 47% thing.
www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-47-who-are-dependent-on-the-government-2012-9

and for 6 i'm just curious why we wouldn't want to trade with china at all? I'm not challenging you on it I just don't know to much about that, though to me I don't see how that hurts us.

I guess I disagree with number 1 as well. I do think the environment should be protected.
I'm going to sleep now so if someone responds I will not be responding tonight.
User avatar #11663 to #11435 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
We want manufacturing back in this country. Obviously it would be impossible to break away from China completely, but we have to do our best if we want to start bringing back jobs.

The environment is just fine for probably the next few hundred years. We have to worry about our current problems right now.
User avatar #11432 to #11423 - duudegladiator (10/24/2012) [-]
Everything that you said, except Israel, is what Romney has planned. Why cut ties with Israel? We made the country.
User avatar #11664 to #11432 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
What good has israel ever done for us?
User avatar #11668 to #11664 - duudegladiator (10/26/2012) [-]
Its not what they've done for us, It's what we've already done for them.

Its kind of like a bank investment. When you put about 150 billion in investments into a bank, what happens when you pull out?
User avatar #11671 to #11668 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
We are never going to get anything out of israel. We are continuing to waste our time with them.
User avatar #11672 to #11671 - duudegladiator (10/26/2012) [-]
Israel is in the Middle East what Ethiopia and Kenya is to Africa. They are our main foothold into the Middle East. Not only does the U.S. support it, but the U.N. does too. Think of it like this:

A baby of yours is born, and has grown to the Age of say 15, the 15 year old is getting bullied coming home with bruises, cuts, and lacerations at his new school and you are his parents, what you are proposing is we leave the child alone, give him no help at all, make him lick his wounds with no money, give him nothing. Let the child fend for themselves against bigger, worse kids. Would you do that?
User avatar #11673 to #11672 - brettd (10/26/2012) [-]
Israel is not our child. We are not responsible for them. This is exactly the kind of attitude that got us into this mess. We do not have to go try and help every country that's got problems. We need to worry about ourselves.
 Friends (0)