Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Pyridium

Obama on equality

30 posts in this topic

Just watching Pres. Obama on msnbc on his equality speech. Our future will require less workers and more consumerism. The national debt is not a problem, it is the investment we have made in America. The health care insurers are bailed out by the ACA law. The bill allows the govt to insure the insurers. They will not lose a penny, period. Any losses by the ACA will be reimbursed by the govt. Obama made sure the insurers will survive a total economic collapse to impose a single payer system in an emergency order. Next will come the take over of the business sector and private sector and make wages equal across the board, regulated by the govt. of course. The govt will regulate how much you can make, how much you can spend, how much gas you can have, how much education you need and we all turn into a colony of ants with every aspect of our lives regulated by the man, the holy one, our savior. Those not able to work will be afforded a life style equal to everyone else, what a great deal. You rock, Obama.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watching Pres. Obama on msnbc on his equality speech. Our future will require less workers and more consumerism. The national debt is not a problem, it is the investment we have made in America. The health care insurers are bailed out by the ACA law. The bill allows the govt to insure the insurers. They will not lose a penny, period. Any losses by the ACA will be reimbursed by the govt. Obama made sure the insurers will survive a total economic collapse to impose a single payer system in an emergency order. Next will come the take over of the business sector and private sector and make wages equal across the board, regulated by the govt. of course. The govt will regulate how much you can make, how much you can spend, how much gas you can have, how much education you need and we all turn into a colony of ants with every aspect of our lives regulated by the man, the holy one, our savior. Those not able to work will be afforded a life style equal to everyone else, what a great deal. You rock, Obama.

Here we go again with that ridiculous argument. The government does not, and will never control anything you just posted about. Just because they want people to be able to live debt free so we can pay our medical bills is a whole other story.

Not to mention they already regulate how much you make, it's called minimum wage. And Obama can be your savior, because he's not mine.

Edited by andy4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong Andy. The government can not regulate how much you make. They can only regulate a minimum of how much one can earn in one hour.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong Andy. The government can not regulate how much you make. They can only regulate a minimum of how much one can earn in one hour.

You're right, but I was just saying they have a hand in how much some people make anyways. Surely they don't cap your salary wherever you work, but it is already somewhat regulated by them. Which in the end regulates how much you make in a year at said minimum wage job. But that is a good thing to have a minimum wage.

In no way do I even think that they will regulate how much anyone can make in a year anywhere at any salary. The op was just a bunch of nonsense as far as I was concerned. Just another paranoid post from someone who doesn't understand what they are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of equality...

I saw a quote in somebody's sig on another website forum a while back, which for the life of me I can not recall the website, but it went like this:

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.

Kinda reminds me of the hammer or the nail choice scenario, as the U.S. population grows. :D

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watching Pres. Obama on msnbc on his equality speech. Our future will require less workers and more consumerism. The national debt is not a problem, it is the investment we have made in America. The health care insurers are bailed out by the ACA law. The bill allows the govt to insure the insurers. They will not lose a penny, period. Any losses by the ACA will be reimbursed by the govt. Obama made sure the insurers will survive a total economic collapse to impose a single payer system in an emergency order. Next will come the take over of the business sector and private sector and make wages equal across the board, regulated by the govt. of course. The govt will regulate how much you can make, how much you can spend, how much gas you can have, how much education you need and we all turn into a colony of ants with every aspect of our lives regulated by the man, the holy one, our savior. Those not able to work will be afforded a life style equal to everyone else, what a great deal. You rock, Obama.

I believe it could very well go that way. Into the total nanny state. But it will happen in Europe first, and probably in Australia and Japan too. The US will be a little behind them. Ultimately the take over by the government always seems to fail before it gets to total control, as humans will put up with total crap governance for only so long. Perhaps with technology to distract us, like the Romans had the colloseum, the government can take more faster. But, ultimately the equivalent of the Visigoths will come and sack Rome and the US Empire will crumble into a handfull of successor states, all with a lot of personal freedoms, and the cycle will begin again.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it could very well go that way. Into the total nanny state. But it will happen in Europe first, and probably in Australia and Japan too. The US will be a little behind them. Ultimately the take over by the government always seems to fail before it gets to total control, as humans will put up with total crap governance for only so long.

While I agree completely with the second part of what you said, I'm not sure I agree with this. Societies throughout history have seen the general populace live under what we'd call absolute control (serfs/nobility), sometimes for hundreds of years without a general uprising. I'd like to think you're right and people will take a stand before things get to that point, but based on history, we won't.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it could very well go that way. Into the total nanny state. But it will happen in Europe first, and probably in Australia and Japan too. The US will be a little behind them. Ultimately the take over by the government always seems to fail before it gets to total control, as humans will put up with total crap governance for only so long. Perhaps with technology to distract us, like the Romans had the colloseum, the government can take more faster. But, ultimately the equivalent of the Visigoths will come and sack Rome and the US Empire will crumble into a handfull of successor states, all with a lot of personal freedoms, and the cycle will begin again.

Bread and circuses. again are we insane? doing the same things over and over and expecting a different outcome. All I can say is history is a b**** learn it now or relive it later.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
less workers and more consumerism.

How the bollocky heck does that work?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong Andy. The government can not regulate how much you make. They can only regulate a minimum of how much one can earn in one hour.

And if they make that minimum more than what your labor actually adds in value, the job will disappear.

How the bollocky heck does that work?

I suppose by replacing workers with robots.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose by replacing workers with robots.

Oh so the robots take the paychecks of the replaced workers and consume spend them on all kinds of consumer products for robots, that makes sense.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the money that would have been paid the employees goes to the owners of the enterprise. So maybe the key is socialism where everyone owns all enterprises.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone owns everything is the heart of communism. Socialism is where a central government owns everything and equally rations everything to all. All consumer goods are produced by govt. workers in govt. factories. All profits go to the govt. All workers will be paid equally according to their job title. Managers and Executives just get a few bucks more but get a better car and housing allowance. This is the result of wealth redistribution. Exactly what Obama is doing.

With today's technology, and world reliance on computers, if the market drops 4,000 points in a week and people begin a run on the banks...it will be easy for govt. to freeze everything in place, transfer ownership of all banks and business to the govt. We know that businesses have a huge excess of reserve capital that could be instantly used to pay off our entire national debt. Obama will keep us safe from neighbor robbing neighbor for food, water and fuel. Long live the KING!

Edited by Pyridium
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone owns everything is the heart of communism. Socialism is where a central government owns everything and equally rations everything to all. All consumer goods are produced by govt. workers in govt. factories. All profits go to the govt. All workers will be paid equally according to their job title. Managers and Executives just get a few bucks more but get a better car and housing allowance. This is the result of wealth redistribution. Exactly what Obama is doing.

With today's technology, and world reliance on computers, if the market drops 4,000 points in a week and people begin a run on the banks...it will be easy for govt. to freeze everything in place, transfer ownership of all banks and business to the govt. We know that businesses have a huge excess of reserve capital that could be instantly used to pay off our entire national debt. Obama will keep us safe from neighbor robbing neighbor for food, water and fuel. Long live the KING!

I don't necessarily see how some form of socialism is bad for the American economy at this point. If wealth redistribution is happening in this country then perhaps some excess money trimmed off the wealthy will do us good. If their taxes were raised lets say, then since the government is broke they'd be doing more to help fix the debt problem. This would no doubt help to pay for things used by the less fortunate through welfare or some social programs that are funded by the government. Especially if they are more readily available, and the poor can spend less on themselves and save money. And maybe this would mean they would also have more money in their pockets if their taxes are lowered if the rich paid more. I can't see how this wouldn't create economic growth in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily see how some form of socialism is bad for the American economy at this point. If wealth redistribution is happening in this country then perhaps some excess money trimmed off the wealthy will do us good. If their taxes were raised lets say, then since the government is broke they'd be doing more to help fix the debt problem. This would no doubt help to pay for things used by the less fortunate through welfare or some social programs that are funded by the government. Especially if they are more readily available, and the poor can spend less on themselves and save money. And maybe this would mean they would also have more money in their pockets if their taxes are lowered if the rich paid more. I can't see how this wouldn't create economic growth in some way.

I think Mao's little red book says much the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mao's little red book says much the same.

That may be, but seeing as how the us is in economic shambles, I think a system like this would do us more good than harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is the attraction of Communism. It looks very, very good at certain points, but it takes days to jump in, and decades to wade back out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is the attraction of Communism. It looks very, very good at certain points, but it takes days to jump in, and decades to wade back out.

True, and while I'm not in favor of communism as a whole, I still do believe that the rich should be paying a bit more in taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, and while I'm not in favor of communism as a whole, I still do believe that the rich should be paying a bit more in taxes.

I also agree with that. Historically the Rich have paid a lot more and still gotten richer every year.

I just wonder where each Presidential Administration and each yearly Congress is going to place that marker for "Rich". Isn't it set at about $250K now? ( I think $250K and above are those "1%" of the population) Hell, I make over $70K and I'm still trying to figure out each month how to pay all the bills and buy food and clothes. I'm not sure that $250 is actually Rich. It might only be Upper Middle Class.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with socialism is it stifles initiative and progress; the problem with capitalism is it encourages greed and exploitation. Some sort of middle way, with each industry set up on a case by case basis, seems best. Keep all the enterprises competing and regulated.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with that. Historically the Rich have paid a lot more and still gotten richer every year.

I just wonder where each Presidential Administration and each yearly Congress is going to place that marker for "Rich". Isn't it set at about $250K now? ( I think $250K and above are those "1%" of the population) Hell, I make over $70K and I'm still trying to figure out each month how to pay all the bills and buy food and clothes. I'm not sure that $250 is actually Rich. It might only be Upper Middle Class.

I would personally have no problem with it staying where it is, but to each their own. I'm really talking about those you hear about spending large sums of money on a gold plated whatever, or a 50 room house for 4 people. I think that's a bit ridiculous and those people should be paying much, much more than they do, and as far as I'm concerned it's a bit too excessive and very greedy. Now I know that it's their money and they should be able to spend it any way they please, but the foundation they rely upon for income is crumbling and hardly anything is done about it. That's why I'm personally for raising taxes on the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with socialism is it stifles initiative and progress; the problem with capitalism is it encourages greed and exploitation. Some sort of middle way, with each industry set up on a case by case basis, seems best. Keep all the enterprises competing and regulated.

Oh yes, one hundred percent. Sometimes the law and way of the land isn't a one size fits all basis.

Edited by andy4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rich pay a little bit more in taxes, the federal govt will have a little bit more to spend. And that's going to solve what? It'll make the deficit a little bit smaller. Politicians tout that accomplishment as really accomplishing something all the time. The two-headed bad-breathed Obushma sold itself in its reelection bid by promising to "cut the deficit in half by the end of its term". And then these useless partisan squabbles descend into how exactly to micromanage the tax code, solving nothing.

If the rich were jammed with 90% income taxes, the power of their wealth would make government smaller. That's one solution to our federal entitlement complex.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally have no problem with it staying where it is, but to each their own. I'm really talking about those you hear about spending large sums of money on a gold plated whatever, or a 50 room house for 4 people. I think that's a bit ridiculous and those people should be paying much, much more than they do, and as far as I'm concerned it's a bit too excessive and very greedy. Now I know that it's their money and they should be able to spend it any way they please, but the foundation they rely upon for income is crumbling and hardly anything is done about it. That's why I'm personally for raising taxes on the rich.

Seems you don't see a bigger picture. Sure excess looks ridiculous in some ways. Why be angry though? All that money being spent on excess is money pumped into the economy. Do you have any idea how much employment the building of one 50 room house creates? First off, the initial construction job. Many contractors and many tradesmen with many employees had good work for probably a couple years who all bought lots of tools and lumber and stone and piping and wiring and rented machinery through local suppliers and so much more. Then the real estate employees get paid at point of sale. Then the occupants use tons of utilities, probably enough to pay for one employees salary at each utility company. These types will have cleaners and maids and tradesmen practically living there with the amount of upkeep. You think the landscaper is hostile towards the excessively gigantic yard and garden? The amount of jobs these crazy rich people create is astounding. I really could come up with a far larger list. I'm a contractor. I rarely acquire such upscale work but don't think for a minute all the blue collar guys in relatable fields scoff at such excess. We're out to get some of that and believe me we will. These rich folks don't do a thing for themselves. They pay for it all. Let's not forget all the car salesmen commissions they generate. And their property taxes, yea that's a ton too. Excess might look sleazy but it's for the greater good. Trust that that materialistic person is doing better things with their money for their community dollar for dollar than the government will ever do with the extra tax dollars.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally have no problem with it staying where it is, but to each their own. I'm really talking about those you hear about spending large sums of money on a gold plated whatever, or a 50 room house for 4 people. I think that's a bit ridiculous and those people should be paying much, much more than they do, and as far as I'm concerned it's a bit too excessive and very greedy. Now I know that it's their money and they should be able to spend it any way they please, but the foundation they rely upon for income is crumbling and hardly anything is done about it. That's why I'm personally for raising taxes on the rich.

It is not what the Citizen believes is "rich" which is the issue. It is what the legislators decide is "rich" which needs to be made public.

I do beleive that this nation was founded on Greed. Mexicans come to the US because they greedily want to send more money home. Overseas immigrants come here because they greedily want to make more.

I think one issue is when Wealth becomes institutionalized. Where someone long ago made several million dollars and now generations of parasitic decendants are living off it. If someone worked hard and built a business that becomes a multi-billion dollar corporation, I feel they earned that. But people who are Rich simply because they were the great grandchildren of a Robber Baron probably deserve it less.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.