Hyperpartisanship is threatening to destroy our country

[The Sir]

This is... not... good. It might sound like it is at first glance, but it translates into all bad for me and you. Intentional cheap labor policy is bad for everyone except the actual corporations themselves (who, without laws specifically stating otherwise, have ZERO obligation to anyone but shareholders, and even employees are only a means to an end). And even profits don't equal jobs, corporations recovered pretty well from the recession and have record profits but why hire anybody if they don't have to?

 

They're free to make profits in any way they please. The government has no right to infringe on that as long as they are not inflicting harm on their workers. And if a worker feels abused, or underpaid, or mistreated, he can go find employment somewhere else. If he chooses not to, then the job must not be that bad.

 

If corporations can find cheap labor overseas, I actually encourage them to do it. Maximize profits as much as possible within the law. If American workers don't like seeing their jobs shipped abroad, they should work for less. And the government should allow them to work for less. But don't be upset when you want $75 a day and some dude in Thailand only wants $3 and thus he gets the job. That's just good business.

 

Capitalism rules!

[mr_genius]

The government has no right to infringe on that as long as they are not inflicting harm on their workers.

 

that sounds like protectionism to me. therefore i am against it. a business should harm as they see fit.

Edited August 5, 2011 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

Other governments have protectionist policies and subsidize their key industries... not that I'm advocating this but IJS.

[mr_genius]

Other governments have protectionist policies and subsidize their key industries... not that I'm advocating this but IJS.

 

no they don't!

[StrangeSox]

They're free to make profits in any way they please. The government has no right to infringe on that as long as they are not inflicting harm on their workers. And if a worker feels abused, or underpaid, or mistreated, he can go find employment somewhere else. If he chooses not to, then the job must not be that bad.

 

If corporations can find cheap labor overseas, I actually encourage them to do it. Maximize profits as much as possible within the law. If American workers don't like seeing their jobs shipped abroad, they should work for less. And the government should allow them to work for less. But don't be upset when you want $75 a day and some dude in Thailand only wants $3 and thus he gets the job. That's just good business.

 

Capitalism rules!

 

Says the government employee.

 

Also not sure what "rules" in your scenario, you're saying America should aspire to third world living standards.

[The Sir]

Says the government employee.

 

Oh. Well, if my opinions on private corporations are invalid because I work for the government, then I guess your opinions on DADT and use of military force are invalid because you never served your country. Think that's fair?

 

And seriously, what's your solution to rampant outsourcing? I'll support tax breaks for companies that keep jobs here. But I'm not in support of policies that put restrictions on employers. Rewards, not punishments and restrictions.

[southsider2k5]

Other governments have protectionist policies and subsidize their key industries... not that I'm advocating this but IJS.

 

But corporate subsidies are EVIL!

[StrangeSox]

Oh. Well, if my opinions on private corporations are invalid because I work for the government, then I guess your opinions on DADT and use of military force are invalid because you never served your country. Think that's fair?

 

It's not that your opinions on corporations are invalid because you work for the government, I'm pointing out the irony that someone who rants about how stupid and dumb and awful the government is and how we should be rooting for companies that outsource jobs to places with terrible wages, terrible working conditions, terrible environmental standards and zero workers' rights because hey, if Americans don't want to go back to the Gilded Age, f*** 'em! is someone who works for the government.

 

And seriously, what's your solution to rampant outsourcing? I'll support tax breaks for companies that keep jobs here. But I'm not in support of policies that put restrictions on employers. Rewards, not punishments and restrictions.

You didn't address this part: not sure what "rules" in your scenario, you're saying America should aspire to third world living standards.

 

I don't need to have a solution to rampant outsourcing in order to criticize people cheerleading for rapidly declining standards of living so that the top 1% can get even richer. I mean, what's the positive in your scenario? Why is that a system we should strive for? What is the benefit for the average citizen for multinationals to maximize profits at their expense? Why would you encourage this sort of behavior?

 

I mean, it's not like you have to be a socialist or a strident protectionist in order to not want to depress American wages to $3/hour so the investor class can keep a few billion more. It just seems like blind ideological cheerleading.

[The Sir]

It's not that your opinions on corporations are invalid because you work for the government, I'm pointing out the irony that someone who rants about how stupid and dumb and awful the government is and how we should be rooting for companies that outsource jobs to places with terrible wages, terrible working conditions, terrible environmental standards and zero workers' rights because hey, if Americans don't want to go back to the Gilded Age, f*** 'em! is someone who works for the government.

 

I've always maintained that defense is one of the few legitimate areas of government. I'm all for our huge defense budget. What I'm against is the ridiculous amount of money being spent on out-of-control entitlement programs (AKA stealing from the people who work for their money and giving it to the leeches who liberals refuse to even have tested for drugs). Or government healthcare packages that people are forced to buy. Or government funding for clinics that practice abortion (for or against it, it's ridiculous that public money would be spent on child murder). I'm against all of that, and always have been. I'd hate the government a lot less if they stuck to the few things I see as legitimate functions.

 

You didn't address this part: not sure what "rules" in your scenario, you're saying America should aspire to third world living standards.

 

I don't need to have a solution to rampant outsourcing in order to criticize people cheerleading for rapidly declining standards of living so that the top 1% can get even richer. I mean, what's the positive in your scenario? Why is that a system we should strive for? What is the benefit for the average citizen for multinationals to maximize profits at their expense? Why would you encourage this sort of behavior?

 

I mean, it's not like you have to be a socialist or a strident protectionist in order to not want to depress American wages to $3/hour so the investor class can keep a few billion more. It just seems like blind ideological cheerleading.

 

So you don't have a solution? I do (well, it's a partial one, at least). Offer tax breaks to corporations that keep jobs in this country. But I will never support the government interfering with the free market and punishing or regulating corporations that find new ways to maximize profits. That's another area that government has no place in.

 

I don't like seeing jobs outsourced to India or China or Taiwan. But I dislike government interference in the economy and in the affairs of private organizations even more.

Edited August 5, 2011 by The Sir

[StrangeSox]

I've always maintained that defense is one of the few legitimate areas of government.

 

You're all for the part of the government cutting your check.

 

So you don't have a solution? I do (well, it's a partial one, at least). Offer tax breaks to corporations that keep jobs in this country. But I will never support the government interfering with the free market and punishing or regulating corporations that find new ways to maximize profits. That's another area that government has no place in.

 

I don't like seeing jobs outsourced to India or China or Taiwan. But I dislike government interference in the economy and in the affairs of private organizations even more.

 

You don't need a prescription to make a diagnosis. Additionally, you were openly cheering for jobs being outsourced if those dumb lazy Americans didn't want to work for $3/hour with no benefits in that post. You're actively calling for a race to the bottom here so that the super-wealthy can get even more super-wealthier. You haven't explained why corporations maximizing profits at the expense of the other 95% of the country is something good or desirable.

 

 

[The Sir]

You're all for the part of the government cutting your check.

 

No. I believe the military's mission is essential. I believed that long before I became a part of it. National defense is a vital part of defending our way of life. Wealth redistribution is not and never will be.

 

And even if I was just a dude who wanted to protect his paycheck, which I'm not, how would that be any different from a welfare maggot voting Democrat solely to keep his money supply going? Well, the difference would be that I'm actually contributing to society, of course.

 

You don't need a prescription to make a diagnosis. Additionally, you were openly cheering for jobs being outsourced if those dumb lazy Americans didn't want to work for $3/hour with no benefits in that post. You're actively calling for a race to the bottom here so that the super-wealthy can get even more super-wealthier. You haven't explained why corporations maximizing profits at the expense of the other 95% of the country is something good or desirable.

 

I'm cheering for good business. Again, employers should do what is allowed within the law to maximize profits. I hope tax breaks are implemented in order to encourage employers to keep jobs here. That's proactive and acceptable. But I will not see a big government nanny state step in and tell employers what they have to do. Big government is a far greater evil than job outsourcing and private citizens' greed.

[StrangeSox]

blind ideological cheerleading

[The Sir]

Are you any different? And trying to write my views off as ideological cheerleading is as idiotic as it is irrelevant. Fitting, coming from a person of your caliber.

[Jenksismyhero]

No. I believe the military's mission is essential. I believed that long before I became a part of it. National defense is a vital part of defending our way of life. Wealth redistribution is not and never will be.

 

And even if I was just a dude who wanted to protect his paycheck, which I'm not, how would that be any different from a welfare maggot voting Democrat solely to keep his money supply going? Well, the difference would be that I'm actually contributing to society, of course.

 

 

 

I'm cheering for good business. Again, employers should do what is allowed within the law to maximize profits. I hope tax breaks are implemented in order to encourage employers to keep jobs here. That's proactive and acceptable. But I will not see a big government nanny state step in and tell employers what they have to do. Big government is a far greater evil than job outsourcing and private citizens' greed.

 

I'm as conservative as the next guy about most issues, but this whole "businesses have free reign in the name of the market" viewpoint is completely narrow-minded. I have absolutely no problem telling US companies that if they take jobs overseas they lose any and all domestic tax incentives. It's absolutely insane that companies are shifting jobs overseas or laying off workers while the CEO and other high level executives walk away with millions per year in salaries.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Are you any different?

 

Sure. Pop into some other threads. Look at the back-and-forth discussions that try to cite relevant information. You just come in and make proclamations.

 

And trying to write my views off as ideological cheerleading is as idiotic as it is irrelevant.

 

It's another way of saying you're not actually making a case for your position.

 

Fitting, coming from a person of your caliber.

[southsider2k5]

blind ideological cheerleading

 

[The Sir]

I'm as conservative as the next guy about most issues, but this whole "businesses have free reign in the name of the market" viewpoint is completely narrow-minded. I have absolutely no problem telling US companies that if they take jobs overseas they lose any and all domestic tax incentives. It's absolutely insane that companies are shifting jobs overseas or laying off workers while the CEO and other high level executives walk away with millions per year in salaries.

 

Sure. I've said that this whole time. Tax breaks disappear if you export jobs. I've got no problem with that at all. But the restrictions should not go farther than that. If a company wants to ship jobs overseas and lose their tax incentives, that's their perogative.

 

As for you, SS, from every your encounter I've ever had with you, you're a leftist to the core. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

[StrangeSox]

Can you distinguish between leftists and liberals?

[StrangeSox]

also I love what this thread has become

[Jenksismyhero]

Can you distinguish between leftists and liberals?

 

 

I think it goes something like this:

 

 

SS...........................................liberal.............Moderate.............Conservative.. ..............Tea Party...............The Sir

Edited August 5, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

politics is not 1-d!

[The Sir]

I think it goes something like this:

 

 

SS...........................................liberal.............Moderate.............Conservative.. ..............Tea Party...............The Sir

 

I'm flattered. Truly.

[farmteam]

Or government funding for clinics that practice abortion (for or against it, it's ridiculous that public money would be spent on child murder).

 

I can't stop laughing at this sentence. Awesomely phrased.

[jasonxctf]

I can't stop laughing at this sentence. Awesomely phrased.

 

awesomely retarded too.

[The Sir]

I can't stop laughing at this sentence. Awesomely phrased.

 

Even better is the idea that America's heroes came home from Vietnam and the same miserable leftist scum who supported Roe v. Wade came out to greet them with spit and cries of "baby killer". If that isn't ironic, I don't know what is. There is a special place in Hell for those asswipes.