|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 24, 2012 0:14:02 GMT -5
Been doing it in Alaska for years at public schools that are too small to provide certain sports teams. Works really well.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 24, 2012 0:12:48 GMT -5
1) The US worker demands a livable wage and benefits. And then some. Some are never happy, but are unwilling to start their own business to compete. They would rather use monopoly power enforced by government guns to twist arms which hurts everyone. An economy is like water in that it will find its own level. Competition, not force, will determine wages and benefits. 2) The US consumer demands low prices. As they well should. Competition benefits everyone. 3) The US government demands businesses provide save working environments. That idea went out the window decades ago. The government demands that businesses bow down to government demands. (Reading "The Death of Common Sense" will give you an idea of where we were years ago, and things have only gotten worse.) One example that I observed personally was that a company was fined a few thousand dollars because their MSDS book was 6 inches from where government regulations demanded that it be placed. The company had to wall up a door and make a new door a few inches away. How did that make the company safer? OSHA put a brick maker out of business because after a string of expensive and pointless demands, the safety rail was 1/2" an inch too short, so government demands said the company had to dig up all the concrete and replace the entire rail. The company decided to simply close. How did that make the business safer? So-called government safety regulations have become the stick, since the carrot was destroyed long ago. 4) Business owners/stock holders/investors demand maximum profits. As they should. And the government takes a big chunk of it away from them to redistribute to others who made poorer choices in life. What is wrong with an athlete making $80million, as long as fans are willing to pay him that much? 1) The US worker is not going to work for Chinese/Mexican wages. If forced to, we would see a mass increase in class separation and a collapse in our economy. History teaches us that those in poverty will only break their backs for the rich for so long before revolting. For the latter, current times shows us that when people can not afford to buy things, the economy collapses. Read "The Wal-Mart Effect" for a realistic look at this concept, instead of the knee-jerk MSM emotionalism. An economy will find its own level. 2) The US consumer will not pay 2x+ the price for an American made product. And let's be real here, this isn't the '80s anymore. Chinese made products (for the most part) today are every bit as good as American made products. And in some cases, better. Who here would rather have an American made electronic device over one made in China or Japan? What made their products better? Are we incapable of making a better product? No. Government protections kept companies from having to improve while protecting them from foreign competitors. Worked really well in sending us into the Great Depression and the depression of the 70s and is well on its way into sending us into the next one. GM can build a 'Vette that has tons of horsepower, handles great, and gets good gas mileage. Problem is, it's unaffordable to most people, and when people do get them, things break and fall off, such as the seat belt holders and door buttons. (I read a review in a European magazine that started out with stars in their eyes and ended up with them making fun of US made cars.) Why has the Corolla been the most long term reliable car until the industry changed the meaning of "long term" and made door switches equal to blown engines? 3) The US government will not ever relax on business regulations and safety. If we could simply get them back to safety regulations, that would remove a great burden from companies wanting to do business here. 4) Businesses paying owners//heads/investors 7+ figures whilst still being able to turn multimillion dollar profits can afford to cut those numbers inorder to bring jobs back to this shore. How about cutting taxes and quit punishing them when they are successful? How about removing the government monopoly on employees? (Union free Toyota employees are happier than GM/UAW employees.) Again. I am not saying they do not deserve to make a profit or be wealthy (there obviously has to be some separation in class, else who would flip our burgers) .... but what would it hurt for them to take a reduction in their millions for our economy's good? Remove the government protection (bailouts) and they would either earn their money or would not make as much. Instead of demanding a paycut, demand the government quit protecting them from failure. But, free trade always benefits everyone. If an Englishman could produce one yard of cloth in four hours and a bushel of potatoes in one hour, while an Irishman took twelve hours to make the cloth and two hours to harvest the potatoes, trade would still benefit both, even though the Englishman is more efficient at both. He is three times more efficient at making cloth and twice as efficient in farming potatoes. But, the Englishman is MORE cost efficient in making cloth. If he didn't make the cloth, he can harvest four bushels of potatoes. When the Irishman didn't make the cloth, he could get six bushels of potatoes. If they were to trade potatoes for cloth at the rate of one yard of cloth for five bushels of potatoes, both would benefit. If the Englishman made only cloth and the Irishman only picked potatoes, the Englishman would get five bushels of potatoes for a yard of cloth instead of the four bushels he would have harvested. The Irishman would get a yard of cloth for only five bushels of potatoes. It's the same with anything between any two trading partners, as long as the government stays out of the way. It's government interference that is the problem, not people wanting to keep what they have earned.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 22, 2012 22:56:39 GMT -5
Since Obama is technically the CiC, perhaps, because of his actions, he should be charged with violating the provision against conduct endangering "good order and discipline."
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 22, 2012 22:52:09 GMT -5
How about the greed that raises taxes to the point that moving overseas is more lucrative?
Or the greed of the unions that drive up costs to the point that moving overseas is more lucrative?
And if the bailouts stopped, executives would be on the hook for running the companies better, but the bailouts started in the 1920's as a precursor to the Great Depression, and considering where we are now headed...
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 19, 2012 0:21:33 GMT -5
You can't be dumb enough to recognize sarcasm, can you?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 19, 2012 0:20:00 GMT -5
You're making the (probably mistaken) assumption that it was an either/or situation. If politicians hold true to form, if they had passed the wheel tax, at some point in the future, they would have said they need MORE money and turned to emissions anyway.
Much like NC passed a lottery in exchange for lowering their sales tax rates. Didn't take long for it to be right back where it started.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 16, 2012 15:29:23 GMT -5
Here you go, in his own words:
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 15, 2012 21:24:27 GMT -5
Well, he did invent the internet and the internet is full of pornography, so TN voted him down as a pornographer.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 15, 2012 20:18:35 GMT -5
It's about the only campaign promise that he has kept when he promised that energy costs would skyrocket under his tenure.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 13, 2012 16:08:53 GMT -5
He himself is a hack and is whacked.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 13, 2012 16:06:13 GMT -5
Maybe it's not fat, but three feet long.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 9, 2012 15:51:14 GMT -5
Both democrats and republicans are simply two heads of the same poisonous snake. One is a faster acting poison than the other. Republicans destroy our body and democrats destroy our brains.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 7, 2012 23:03:50 GMT -5
I don't tell them the tip was less for bad service. I let them figure it out. Sometimes, if it's bad enough... I was on my way to race in West Palm Beach a few years back and we stopped at a Denny's late at night. The only customers in the restaurant. (Across the street from a new Chinese restaurant named "Fu King". Yes, my wife has a photo of it somewhere.) I got our first drinks after waiting for several minutes. then I got every refill. When we went to leave, I put a zero down on the tip line. The manager asked me if I didn't want to leave a tip since the waitress is raising children. I told him that if she wants a tip, I'd like to at least meet her.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 7, 2012 23:00:27 GMT -5
It's not hypocritical; there are certain elements that want to throw good money after bad, so they say, "well, let's see if those who are footing the bill are willing to pay for it".
About the opposite of hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 7, 2012 22:58:19 GMT -5
Because we were discussing the others.
And although he's the only rational and sane person politically who's running (except for the hypocrite), his foreign policy ideas have already been tried with pretty bad results.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 7, 2012 0:46:14 GMT -5
At least they're putting it on the ballot instead of shoving it down everyone's throats.
But they should be cutting unnecessary spending.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 7, 2012 0:45:07 GMT -5
You could tell that some of those with him were embarrassed.
If I get bad service, I make sure they know the lack of tip is intentional. And I don't consider it bad service if they are overwhelmed and working their butts off; I consider it bad service if I don't see anyone doing anything.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 7, 2012 0:43:20 GMT -5
I am. Why?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 6, 2012 16:12:32 GMT -5
That is true almost everywhere. There was one lady who told my wife, at the beginning of the meal, "I gave my money at church today, so I don't have money for a tip". My wife looked at her and said, "Funny, guess where I get the money to give to my church?" (The lady complained to the manager and the manager simply told the lady that the waitresses make their living off tips, so he could understand why one would be upset when told up front that they weren't going to tip.)
Black people by and large don't tip, although there are some who tip exuberantly to try to make up for the others. I have known many black people in tipping industries and even they hate serving black people. (And black churches are the worst of the lot.)
The best tippers tend to be legal Mexicans, though.
I was eating out with my wife the other day, and a group of 12 blacks came in and the eldest male (presumably the father) said to the group (within hearing of the waitress), "Now we don't have to tip these people. If I see anyone leave a tip, I'm putting it in my pocket." When we left, we left a very large tip and when I said something about it, my wife said, "Someone has to make up for the lowlifes who don't tip". I found out from the waitress later that after we left, two members of the group came and handed her a tip directly.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 6, 2012 16:03:36 GMT -5
Many dittoheads that I have met are neither conservative nor libertarian, but only a progressive whose ideas happen to match the ideas of the conservatives and libertarians. IOW, they talk the talk only.
And hypocrisy is why I would not vote for Next, even though he's a better choice than either Santorum or Romney.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 6, 2012 15:59:27 GMT -5
I love that guy! If I were in that area, I'd be at the show.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 6, 2012 10:34:43 GMT -5
I know one who is doing that now. It grates on my nerves to hear her talk about it.
I don't like hypocrites of any sort, which is why I don't have many liberal friends, but the conservatives and libertarians that are that way annoy me even more; it's not a part of that lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 6, 2012 0:20:26 GMT -5
This might not be quite as whack as it sounds. I'm sure it can be applied to the few cases in which the homeowner is justified in defending himself, and the other person just happens to be a cop (think about people who get shot because cops are at the wrong address), but a bad guy is going to shoot anyway, and this just gives them more power to pile it on him in court because he's NOT justified in firing.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 5, 2012 16:17:52 GMT -5
If they're too lazy to work, just let them starve to death.
The only ones who deserve a handout are those who are incapable of working, and that should be handled at the local level.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 5, 2012 1:22:47 GMT -5
JC, a more appropriate analogy would be to let them work doing something before you give them the handout.
Won't work? Won't eat.
That's the way the Bible lays it out quite simply, and that's the only way that works in the modern world. Hunger is a great motivator.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 5, 2012 1:20:26 GMT -5
And they ALL pay many, many different taxes, and none of them receive any handouts.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 5, 2012 1:18:54 GMT -5
You consider Rothbard the bible, I know. I don't know why I didn't see the obvious. Rothbard examines detail in depth that led to the Great Depression, and it really does seem obvious now that if we do the exact same thing, something different will happen.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 4, 2012 14:47:46 GMT -5
Really? Name a church that gets your tax dollars that doesn't also pay into the system to pay for their protection.
I will buy you lunch if you can find one single one.
And our free education system has so deteriorated since it became free that it's now a joke. But let's spend more on it just in case!
Want to fix it? Let the schools compete for the individual's share of the money.
The same with college. The more money government has thrown at them, the worse they have gotten. But let's throw some more at them!
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 4, 2012 14:44:12 GMT -5
And unless they are incapable of doing any sort of work, they should be cut off. If they were born that way, then they would die. Jesus would have said "fuck them leaches", anyway, right? Reading comprehension problems? I guess so. I highlighted the pertinent part that you chose to ignore. and yes, Jesus said that if you won't work you won't eat. Know how God commands to feed the poor? Leave the corners of your fields unharvested so they can go in and WORK and harvest for themselves and eat. Someone had the bright idea of putting people on welfare to work with giving them government jobs. How about letting them pick up trash in their neighborhoods? Someone has to pick up all the leftover lottery tickets and condoms.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 4, 2012 14:39:52 GMT -5
Austerity has never been tried in Europe voluntarily! The only time they lived austerely was when they were in a depression because they had already spent all of everyone else's money and had none left to take.
If taxing and spending led to prosperity, Rome would still be ruling the world.
|
|