I present to you the 2013 POTUS.

[dali71]

I present to you the 2013 POTUS

 

[QuantumPion]

As soon as someone claims to support the free market, whether or not the candidate is an economic traitor is an issue in play. Actually, it's an issue for all candidates as far as I'm concerned.

The free market has also resulted in 25% of the households owning 87% of all U.S. wealth. So, we really have to wonder whether such politicians are good for the other 75% of us. Will a guy like this who claims to support the free market just further promote the economic policies that have resulted in the top 25% having 87% of the wealth?

25% of households own 87% of wealth because those 25% are the most creative and hardest working people whom create that wealth. Your view of the economy is completely skewed by your emotions. Poor people aren't poor because rich people took away their money. Rich people are rich because they produced goods or services so useful to society (except for Democrat politicians, whom get rich by mooching off everyone else). Poor people stay poor because they don't work hard, don't get educated, and don't save money for their kids. Under these circumstances, how could you expect any other results in wealth distribution?

If you have references for that claim, I'd like to see them. Our nation has been running a multi-hundred billion dollar trade deficit for years, so where are all of these "2-10 new jobs created"? If 2-10 new jobs are created for each job sent overseas, where are they? Why is the unemployment rate so high (about 22% using the Shadowstats figure, about 17% using U6), and that doesn't even count underemployment. If what you say is true--2-10 jobs for each one sent overseas--we should be swimming in a sea of available middle class jobs right now.

The claim on its face seems nonsensical--we gain jobs by losing jobs. It's almost the same as saying, "We need lots of unemployment in order to have more employment."

The reason why unemployment is so high right now is due to deleveraging and the banking crisis. What, you think we just magically went from 4% to 20% unemployment over a few months and all those jobs went to China?

(So far no economist, politician, or pundit has been able to provide a convincing answer to that question to explain how global labor arbitrage will benefit Americans and if they did you can bet that we would hear about it everyday because they would be shouting it from the rooftops.)

Your economic ignorance is quite astounding. That, or you are just trolling.

First of all, companies using foreign labor is not arbitrage, it is comparative advantage. Basically, the first words you hear on day one of economics 101. Arbitrage is what liberal progressives like George Soros utilize to make huge amounts of money by fooling with other nations' currencies.

And if you truly do not understand how more efficient production leads to lower prices for goods, which leads to people being able to afford and buy more goods, which creates new jobs for those goods, well, I can't really help you. I guess Yuri Bezemov was right - some people just have been programmed to think irrationally early on and there is no way to convince them of the truth that is right in front of their eyes.

Immigration restrictions are a form of economic dictatorship in that such laws tell domestic businesses who they can and cannot employ domestically. Under real laissez-faire capitalism anyone who wanted to enter the United States for work and to establish citizenship would be free to do so as long as some private property owner somewhere were willing to let them stay on his private property.

Oh I see what you did there, nice word trickery. Sorry, didn't get past me.

Immigration restrictions do not tell businesses who they can hire domestically. That is unless you think the United States is not a sovereign nation or Mexico is part of the US. The government of the United States gets to determine who is allowed to be in the country, not businesses. This has nothing to do with laissez-faire capitalism, yet another straw man argument.

 

[BoberFett]

Poor people stay poor because they don't work hard, don't get educated, and don't save money for their kids. Under these circumstances, how could you expect any other results in wealth distribution?

You probably don't want to claim people don't work hard. The middle and working lower class work very hard. They probably work much harder than those making more than them. You are right though that their priorities are likely misplaced and that rather than investing their money so they can increase their share of the buy by becoming part of that 25%, they buy bigger houses, cars, and toys to keep up with the Joneses. If anything, I'd say consumerism has done more to damage the middle class than anything.

 

[CitizenKain]

He put his life on the line to defend your freedom to be a colossal douchebag, so you should thank the man.

He didn't defend shit.

25% of households own 87% of wealth because those 25% are the most creative and hardest working people whom create that wealth. Your view of the economy is completely skewed by your emotions. Poor people aren't poor because rich people took away their money. Rich people are rich because they produced goods or services so useful to society (except for Democrat politicians, whom get rich by mooching off everyone else). Poor people stay poor because they don't work hard, don't get educated, and don't save money for their kids. Under these circumstances, how could you expect any other results in wealth distribution?

Hahahaha, what a pile of BS.

Poor people don't work hard, how hilarious. Those people working 2+ jobs, look at how lazy they are.

 

[QuantumPion]

You probably don't want to claim people don't work hard. The middle and working lower class work very hard. They probably work much harder than those making more than them. You are right though that their priorities are likely misplaced and that rather than investing their money so they can increase their share of the buy by becoming part of that 25%, they buy bigger houses, cars, and toys to keep up with the Joneses. If anything, I'd say consumerism has done more to damage the middle class than anything.

Poor people that work hard don't stay poor for long. Basically, the following classes describe just about everyone in America:

1) Poor, first generation immigrants. If they came here seeking freedom and work hard their children usually become middle class.
2) Perpetually poor bums - the welfare class.
3) The middle class - people whom either worked extremely hard themselves to be successful, or their parents were successful enough to provide them with higher education, etc.
4) The new rich (majority of rich people, including Bill Gates, Sam Walton, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, etc) - people that could have started out from either #1 or #3, but due to talent and ingenuity managed to become extremely successful in a short time period.
5) The old rich & the parasite class - People whom would be in class #2 if it were not for their luck in being descendants of #4. Also includes social parasites that become rich due to either crime or corruption (E.g. Al Gore).

 

[QuantumPion]

He didn't defend shit.



Hahahaha, what a pile of BS.

Poor people don't work hard, how hilarious. Those people working 2+ jobs, look at how lazy they are.

OK my wording wasn't perfect so I will clarify. I did not mean to say that poor people do not work hard. What I meant to say is the segment of poor people that remain perpetually poor remain so because they do not work hard.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

He didn't defend shit.



Hahahaha, what a pile of BS.

Poor people don't work hard, how hilarious. Those people working 2+ jobs, look at how lazy they are.

One of my ex-gf's I had while I was in high school was extremely poor. I was actually making more than her mom and close to her dad despite his 60+ hour physical labor work weeks. These people were definitely not lazy. Yes, they both lacked education, but not everyone has that opportunity.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Self-made man? Isn't military pay paid by the taxpayers? He's been living off of the taxpayers his whole life. And will continue to live off the taxpayers with his likely large military pension and benefits.

LOL really... troll somewhere else.

I guess every government worker lives of the government. I bet if you work for a company that gets grants from the governemtn, your living off taxpayers too.

he served his country in the name of freedom and put his life on the line. he deserves compensation, and to get to the point in his life that he is, he must of done a great job at it.

 

[dali71]

He didn't defend shit.

He did 4 years of combat duty, for which he received the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal with Combat “V”, and numerous other medals. He put his life on the line for this country, so you can shut that wise and beautiful woman-like appendage you call a mouth and have a nice day

 

[CitizenKain]

He did 4 years of combat duty, for which he received the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal with Combat “V”, and numerous other medals. He put his life on the line for this country, so you can shut that wise and beautiful woman-like appendage you call a mouth and have a nice day

I must have missed the part where Iraq attacked the US and only brave soldiers of the US Army were there to defend us from them. So no, he didn't defend shit. You can go bend over and thank the troops however you want though.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally Posted by umbrella39
Idiot v 2.0 in 2013...

So you are expecting Obama to win?

I thought he was talking about you?

 

[nick1985]

I thought he was talking about you?

No, maybe it was you?

 

[JEDIYoda]

This is the kind of leadership we need. A brilliant military historian whom is unapologetic about telling the truth. And he's a free-market libertarian to boot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k

He's running for congress in Florida.

sorry....the nation as a whole will not elect a Republican president for quite a long time!!

Sure it wqill NOT be Obama but it will be a Democrat that is for certain!!

You must be iether stoopid or goofy or nieve or all three if you think in 4 short years Obama could have turned this country around when it took the Republicans more than 8 years to screw it up!!!!

 

[nick1985]

I must have missed the part where Iraq attacked the US and only brave soldiers of the US Army were there to defend us from them. So no, he didn't defend shit. You can go bend over and thank the troops however you want though.

Wow.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

No, maybe it was you?

Nope, but I don't claim to know everything like some poeple, nor make idiotic comments.

 

[BoberFett]

Wow.

Eh, CitizenLame trolls around here every now and then. Best to just ignore the little queef.

 

[QuantumPion]

I must have missed the part where Iraq attacked the US and only brave soldiers of the US Army were there to defend us from them. So no, he didn't defend shit. You can go bend over and thank the troops however you want though.

Saddam Hussein invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990, and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, two of our economic allies in the region.

 

[Noobtastic]

Saddam Hussein invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990, and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, two of our economic allies in the region.

please. Kuwait was drilling into Iraqi land and saudi arabia had been meddling in iraq's affairs since the 1950s.