Obama to Truckers and Environmentalists: F-You!

[werepossum]

As I've explained before redistribution was how this country was founded (impoverished Europeans whos wages and ownership of production were driven down to nothing stealing land from rich Indians) and is necessary because rich get richer no matter what form of govt you have. You'll wake up to this fact sooner or later.

Probably when you are paying almost all your tax dollars (if you still have a job) in the form of interest payments to the very same people who profited for 30 years by selling you out.

That it's happened before does not make me yearn to play the role of the Indian this time!

Also, I have no problem with the rich getting richer. I'm happy for them. Where I have a problem is when they do so not by increasing society's wealth, but by gaming the system to take a larger share of a constant pie.

 

[Zebo]

Here's a real article http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/03/109801/us-mexico-reach-deal-to-end-trucking.html

This is being done to end Mexico's retaliatory tarriffs and increase exports to Mexico. Really? What fucking products do we make that Mexicans can afford to buy cheaper than if they made them themselves? I don't understand how free trade Kool Aid drinkers can believe in this backwards nonsense.


Do you people really not get it? You can't get something for nothing. You can't give a decent paying American job to a low paid third worlder without... an... American... losing... his... job...

This is a drive to make us like mexico. Couple dozen billionaires who control everything 5% who serve and protect them and rest in poverty and destitution. Free Trade FTW. I'm on the right side of the fault line and live behind gated 8' block walls (like Mexico), are you?

 

[Capt Caveman]

I believe everything I read on the internet.

 

[Zebo]

Think bigger guys.

The "plan" is to equalize wages and living standards on a worldwide basis. That means that those at the top have to give things up so that those at the bottom can have more.

NAFTA
CAFTA
Obamacare
Cap and Trade

The list goes on. It's been playing out for decades as it continues yet today.

Every time those of us on the right try to point out what's going on we get lambasted and are told we're being greedy and selfish. Regardless, this is what's going on. My big question is where will the point of equalization takes us? Will I be living in a mud hut, a metal roofed shack, a cardboard box or a modest home? The process is going to take a hundred if not hundreds of years. That's a long time to have your standard of living fall.

You can go with the flow or fight back but I think it's important to look at what's happening objectively and decide if you're really willing to make those sacrifices. We will reach a point in time when there'll be no turning back.

LOL people are not as altruistic as you think it's always about money and power - It's not a plan to equalize wages but thats is the effect of capital selling out American's modestly unionized well paid workforce to lowest bidder.

You think I really care about poor people when I champion their causes or is it I like a huge middle class that can buy houses I built and buy from my store because it pads my bottom line?

 

[IGBT]

that will make the dopers happy. Unabated trucks full of dope on the way.

 

[Zebo]

That it's happened before does not make me yearn to play the role of the Indian this time!

Also, I have no problem with the rich getting richer. I'm happy for them. Where I have a problem is when they do so not by increasing society's wealth, but by gaming the system to take a larger share of a constant pie.

All I'm saying is redistribution of means of production was with us since founding all the way through the 1970's via homestead, where you could literally get 360 acres for free, chop down trees, build a domicile and owe nothing - tough the 1980s with a unionized workforce, barriers to entry, progressive taxation, SBA loans, public education, etc so middle could get a larger portion of what their labor produced maintaining a large middle class. You take those away you get massive debt for homes and education, poverty, and misery eventually. Sorta like Mexico.

Its plain as day to me just by looking at various matrices. From collective debt exploding to maintain middle illusions from ~7 trillion to 60 trillion today. From middles income disappearing or not growing while top 1% gained 1000%. and so on these past 30 years.

It will be plain to most of you within 5 years when govt can hide the truth anymore.

Truth is the greatest heist in history went on. Sold out American working people for short term profit for a few, put people in perpetual debt both personally and governmentally to same people who sold y'all out. Most of us are now home renters rather than owners and owe a large portion of our future income to wealthy Treasury holders.

And people call us socialists LOL.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

From what I understood, that was part of NAFTA.

If the US put restrictions on the mexican truckers, it could be considered as an unfair trade restriction. And you know what that means, off to the World Court we go.

Solution: Pull out of NAFTA.

When a Mexican truck ends up killing a family of 4 in an accident (regardless of whether it was the truck's or the driver's fault), I wonder if they'll be a public outcry.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Think bigger guys.

The "plan" is to equalize wages and living standards on a worldwide basis. That means that those at the top have to give things up so that those at the bottom can have more.

The people at the top, the wealthy who own the capital and businesses, aren't giving anything up at all. Instead, since global labor arbitrage will decrease wages, they'll be able to keep larger fractions of workers' contribution to the act of wealth production for themselves as profit.

Every time those of us on the right try to point out what's going on we get lambasted and are told we're being greedy and selfish.

I thought you guys on the Right supported free market concepts such as international trade and opposed trade and immigration restrictions for those reasons. Isn't it the Right that says it's none of the government's business if companies want to layoff Americans and move their production (for domestic consumption) overseas or hire foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas?

So, when will the Republican Party and Tea Baggers advocate an immediate end to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs? Why didn't the Republicans put an end to mass legal and illegal immigration? (Who is the government to tell businesses that they have to hire Americans and who is the government to say who can and cannot live in the country if they can find someone willing to rent them an apartment?)

Regardless, this is what's going on. My big question is where will the point of equalization takes us? Will I be living in a mud hut, a metal roofed shack, a cardboard box or a modest home? The process is going to take a hundred if not hundreds of years. That's a long time to have your standard of living fall.

Basically, the economic force of global labor arbitrage will transform us into an impoverished third world country. It's happening right now. All of those people who lost their jobs are now poor. Millions of people have also discovered that their large investments of time and money on college education have also been wasted. A large percentage of the population is on food stamps and tens of millions of people have large debt burdens, including (non-dischargeable in bankruptcy) student loan versions. (We can thank the Republicans for making private student loans non-dischargeable.)

The media has reported that lost middle class jobs have been replaced with poverty-wage retail service jobs. In the meantime, many people are working for less than slave wages by working for free at internships. (At least if you are a slave your room and board are provided.) The way things are going, in twenty years we might not have a middle class in this country.

You can go with the flow or fight back but I think it's important to look at what's happening objectively and decide if you're really willing to make those sacrifices. We will reach a point in time when there'll be no turning back.

In the meantime, because of mass immigration, the character of our nation is slowly changing in that fewer and fewer people will remember what it was like to have ever been middle class. We will reach a point of no return and the populace will come to passively accept widespread poverty as the natural American condition just as people do in third world countries and Latin and South America today.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And this is after two years of a shit economy. I have several complaints myself and supported HRC in the primary but I don't regret my gen election vote for a heartbeat and seriously doubt very many others do.

I wonder, if McCain had won, what would be different? Obamacare does almost nothing to address the real health care problem (which can only be addressed by implementing real socialized medicine).

 

[Zebo]

The people at the top, the wealthy who own the capital and businesses, aren't giving anything up at all. Instead, since global labor arbitrage will decrease wages, they'll be able to keep larger fractions of workers' contribution to the act of wealth production for themselves as profit.



I thought you guys on the Right supported free market concepts such as international trade and opposed trade and immigration restrictions for those reasons. Isn't it the Right that says it's none of the government's business if companies want to layoff Americans and move their production (for domestic consumption) overseas or hire foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas?

So, when will the Republican Party and Tea Baggers advocate an immediate end to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs? Why didn't the Republicans put an end to mass legal and illegal immigration? (Who is the government to tell businesses that they have to hire Americans and who is the government to say who can and cannot live in the country if they can find someone willing to rent them an apartment?)



Basically, the economic force of global labor arbitrage will transform us into an impoverished third world country. It's happening right now. All of those people who lost their jobs are now poor. Millions of people have also discovered that their large investments of time and money on college education have also been wasted. A large percentage of the population is on food stamps and tens of millions of people have large debt burdens, including (non-dischargeable in bankruptcy) student loan versions. (We can thank the Republicans for making private student loans non-dischargeable.)

The media has reported that lost middle class jobs have been replaced with poverty-wage retail service jobs. In the meantime, many people are working for less than slave wages by working for free at internships. (At least if you are a slave your room and board are provided.) The way things are going, in twenty years we might not have a middle class in this country.



In the meantime, because of mass immigration, the character of our nation is slowly changing in that fewer and fewer people will remember what it was like to have ever been middle class. We will reach a point of no return and the populace will come to passively accept widespread poverty as the natural American condition just as people do in third world countries and Latin and South America today.

Good post as usual. Many people think it's all about "hard work" to get into the middle class or above. Not hardly. I've never met anyone who works as hard as Mexicans and they are dirt poor. Chinese work twice as hard for a 1/20 as much. It's about what you control. Do you control how much profit you get from what your labor produced? A lot harder to do with open borders.

 

[Zebo]

Oh and you should read The Beijing Consensus: How China's Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century it's a really cool book how 90% all be slaves and bacially two systems of class internationally will emerge. An global elite above the law, rich, and what not, a few serve and protect them and rest in misery and destitution in a police state.

 

[Matt1970]

I wonder, if McCain had won, what would be different? Obamacare does almost nothing to address the real health care problem (which can only be addressed by implementing real socialized medicine).

Although life-threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some services needed are non-urgent and patients are seen at the next-available appointment in their local chosen facility.

The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 90 days.

The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 90 days.

The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 90 days.


Socialized Medicine, gotta love it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Solution: Pull out of NAFTA.

When a Mexican truck ends up killing a family of 4 in an accident (regardless of whether it was the truck's or the driver's fault), I wonder if they'll be a public outcry.

The open border already kills way more than that.

 

[Darwin333]

I wonder, if McCain had won, what would be different? Obamacare does almost nothing to address the real health care problem (which can only be addressed by implementing real socialized medicine).

For the most part, just the people bitching.

 

[rudder]

Is the Mexican border open to US trucking?

No American trucking company would dare send trucks into Mexico... they would never be seen again. They would have to hire an armed escort.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 90 days.

The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 90 days.

The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 90 days.


Socialized Medicine, gotta love it.

Canada isn't the only socialized medicine system in the world, you know. What about the ones in France, England, and other nations? Some even have a semi-market system (Austria, Germany).

While complaining about wait times, consider the tremendous expense that we suffer in the United States. Right now we're spending 17% of our GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions of people uninsured or under-insured with the populace being terrified of losing their jobs and health coverage while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year and with businesses horribly burdened by health insurance concerns.

In contrast, other nations are spending far far less than 17% of their GDP on health care and have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, a more contented populace, and businesses that don't have to worry about insurance issues. Perhaps having to wait to have minor medical issues resolved isn't a bad price to pay for that. Heck, we could probably maintain the service we have now and spend less of our GDP simply by eliminating the costly and inefficient insurance industry middleman.

 

[BoberFett]

Heck, we could probably maintain the service we have now and spend less of our GDP simply by eliminating the costly and inefficient insurance industry middleman.

Yeah, let's replace them with an extremely cheap and efficient federal bureaucracy. What could go wrong?

LMAO! 😀

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, let's replace them with an extremely cheap and efficient federal bureaucracy. What could go wrong?

LMAO! 😀

LMAO!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yeah, let's replace them with an extremely cheap and efficient federal bureaucracy. What could go wrong?

How are the other nations doing it? Follow their model. Aren't Medicare and Medicaid already more efficient than private insurance?

 

[BoberFett]

How are the other nations doing it? Follow their model. Aren't Medicare and Medicaid already more efficient than private insurance?

Other nations are the size of one our states. Let the states do it. The federal government is too big and too far removed to do things properly for 300M+
people. Why hasn't CA or NY done it? Come on lefties, show us how it's done!

And the whole efficient Medicare/Medicaid thing has been argued so many times I'm not even going to bother.

 

[jonks]

I wonder, if McCain had won, what would be different? Obamacare does almost nothing to address the real health care problem (which can only be addressed by implementing real socialized medicine).

You wonder what would be different? I'd estimate about 90% of the bills Obama signed McCain would not have. Healthcare is the most visual issue, of 2009 at least, but it's not difficult to take a look at the laws passed in the last 2 years are recognize almost none of them would be law under McCain/*shudder*Palin.

You also asked if anyone still liked Obama. Most of the world it turns out.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146771/Worldwide-Approval-Leadership-Tops-Major-Powers.aspx

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You wonder what would be different? I'd estimate about 90% of the bills Obama signed McCain would not have. Healthcare is the most visual issue, of 2009 at least, but it's not difficult to take a look at the laws passed in the last 2 years are recognize almost none of them would be law under McCain/*shudder*Palin.

So we wouldn't have the Obamacare half-measure.

Fundamentally, I don't think too much would be different. We would still be suffering the ravages of foreign outsourcing. We would still have the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. We would still have mass legal and illegal immigration. The banks still would have received their taxpayer bailouts. The wealthy would still be enjoying tax cuts. Our nation's economy would still be in a downward spiral towards third world status.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Other nations are the size of one our states. Let the states do it. The federal government is too big and too far removed to do things properly for 300M+
people. Why hasn't CA or NY done it? Come on lefties, show us how it's done!

And the whole efficient Medicare/Medicaid thing has been argued so many times I'm not even going to bother.

If our current system is so good, then why aren't people in other countries holding it up as a model and advocating in favor of it in mass? (Truth is, they think our system is retarded and it would terrify them.) If you think our current system is so good, can you explain how it is that:

United States:

•17% of GDP and growing spent on health care
•Tens of millions uninsured or under-insured
•Insured people living in terror of losing their jobs and health insurance
•Hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year, many of whom had insurance
•Businesses burdened by insurance concerns and costs.

Nations with Real Socialized Medicine:

•Much smaller percentage of GDP spend on health care
•100% coverage
•Zero medical bankruptcies
•Often more doctors per capita
•A more content populace
•Businesses not burdened by insurance concerns

The idea of having individual states take the lead isn't bad in principle, but could they do it without some sort of constitutional change? The first problem is when the government comes to seize ownership of hospitals and clinics. I'm sure there would be other problems. This sort of thing could be worked out on a federal level with appropriate legislation and constitutional amendments, but it doesn't seem like something that an enterprising state could do on its own.

 

[Naeeldar]

If our current system is so good, then why aren't people in other countries holding it up as a model and advocating in favor of it in mass? (Truth is, they think our system is retarded and it would terrify them.) If you think our current system is so good, can you explain how it is that:

United States:

•17% of GDP and growing spent on health care
•Tens of millions uninsured or under-insured
•Insured people living in terror of losing their jobs and health insurance
•Hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year, many of whom had insurance
•Businesses burdened by insurance concerns and costs.

Nations with Real Socialized Medicine:

•Much smaller percentage of GDP spend on health care
•100% coverage
•Zero medical bankruptcies
•Often more doctors per capita
•A more content populace
•Businesses not burdened by insurance concerns

The idea of having individual states take the lead isn't bad in principle, but could they do it without some sort of constitutional change? The first problem is when the government comes to seize ownership of hospitals and clinics. I'm sure there would be other problems. This sort of thing could be worked out on a federal level with appropriate legislation and constitutional amendments, but it doesn't seem like something that an enterprising state could do on its own.

You do realize other nations have higher taxes than us right? Also they barely can balance the cost of socialized medicine for a much smaller populace. The comparison would be the all European countries joining under one socialized plan. It would be a nightmare. Same way doing it in the US is a nightmare.

 

[jonks]

So we wouldn't have the Obamacare half-measure.

Fundamentally, I don't think too much would be different. We would still be suffering the ravages of foreign outsourcing. We would still have the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. We would still have mass legal and illegal immigration. The banks still would have received their taxpayer bailouts. The wealthy would still be enjoying tax cuts. Our nation's economy would still be in a downward spiral towards third world status.

Without getting into DADT/DOMA and bank regulation, what about the 2 scotus judges obama appointed? I think tilting the court 6-2 with one swing vote would have repurcussions for decades.

And hold off on the third world status just yet. People have been predicting the end of this country for 200 years.