vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#42 Nov 22, 2013
Bob wrote:
I guess all that teabagging makes you an authority in that region!
Sure, pippybob...I suppose your an expert in teabagging just by reading about it? I wouldn't advise that you try that with your neighbor's sheep, though. LOL
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#43 Nov 22, 2013
Oneal wrote:
You want to end a debate in America, call someone a racist. The left knows this and has utilized it to maximum effect.
I have to disagree. It think this has been abused to the point that it no longer really has an effect. Sad, really, because racism does exist but people have become so jaded by the abuse of the term that most don't really care anymore.
Iseestupidpeople

Grand Rapids, MI

#44 Nov 22, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed on every single point.
How about we go back to the beginning - From day one every criticism of Obama or the progressive agenda has been deemed "racist".
OK fair enough. Most republicans may not be racists but there is a certain vocal element where it cannot be denied. One doesn't need to go far to see examples of that right here on GR Topix.

Another way to end a debate in America? Bring up the word socialism. Time and time again we hear "This president is a socialist, commie, American-hating thug who's only goal is to dismantle our way of life and turn the population into a subservient flock of sheep dependant on the government."

First of all, we are not heading towards socialism. If you understand how the wealth is distributed in this country, and I don't mean have an 'idea' about it's distribution but really understand how lopsided the tables are, then only those without the ability to reason would be able to make the case that somehow we are going to become a socialist country and this president is the one who's going to take us there.

Most who make this argument don't even understand what socialism is. A socialist country is one where the wealth is shared fairly evenly throughout the population. From the poorest to the richest, the line may have a gradual increase but for the most part is fairly even. We don't have that here in the US. Instead of a gradual rise we have a virtual cliff. The top 10% control 83% of all our money. The bottom 80% control just 7%. From 1979-2007 the after tax income for the bottom 20% went up 41%. For the top 1% it went up 304%. This is not a trend of socialism. I do not bring this up out of jealousy. I bring this up because it reflects the exact opposite of what people think when it comes to socialism.

Over the last 30 years productivity has skyrocketed and the numbers prove it. Corporate profits have skyrocketed and the numbers prove it. The working and middle classes are making less and less. The tax laws and corporate structure has benefited the rich while those who work to make those people rich are earning less. Washington is about money and those who have it have more influence over those who don't. That is the very opposite of the definition of socialism. That includes today's Washington with Obama in the White House. He has done nothing to change that. Wall Street continues to thrive while a huge setion of the population is either underemployed or unemployed altogether. Obama was put into office because of ridiculous amounts of money being given to his campaigns by Wall Street. Anyone who thinks differently, democrat or republican, are just flat out wrong. If you think he doesn't owe those same Wall Streeter's favors and doesn't allow them into the back entrance of the White House for secret 4am meetings then you are stupid.

Making affordable healthcare available, or at least the attempt to, is simply throwing the bottom 80% a bone. Cutting the tax break for the rich is throwing the bottom 80% a bone. The welfare system and food stamp program are simply there to keep the peace and keep violence and robbery to a minimum. None of these things affect the top 10% in any significant way. We spend way more tax dollars on corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the rich than we ever will on the poorest of the poor.

If you understand all this then you also understand that the whole socialism argument falls flat on it's face. As much of a reaction the left gets out of their racism charge the same can be said for the right's socialism charge. Maybe that's what the politicians want us to do? Argue over meaningless hyperbole and creating false truths in order to distract us from the real issues as they pull the levers from behind the curtain.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#45 Nov 22, 2013
You just went way over the heads of the resident racist/bigot class bagger patriots on here. They know who they are. Doubt you'll get much in the way of reasoned argument from any of them, just more right-wing talking point spin, nonsense, stupidity, and baseless claims.
OhOhObaama

Saline, MI

#46 Nov 22, 2013
Bullcrap, all you elite lefty freaks got bent out of shape all because we HAD to ask for a birth certificate.
Even though whites got him elected, the only racist people around are the ones who accuse people of being one.
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

#47 Nov 22, 2013
Iseestupidpeople wrote:
<quoted text>
OK fair enough. Most republicans may not be racists but there is a certain vocal element where it cannot be denied. One doesn't need to go far to see examples of that right here on GR Topix.
Another way to end a debate in America? Bring up the word socialism. Time and time again we hear "This president is a socialist, commie, American-hating thug who's only goal is to dismantle our way of life and turn the population into a subservient flock of sheep dependant on the government."
First of all, we are not heading towards socialism. If you understand how the wealth is distributed in this country, and I don't mean have an 'idea' about it's distribution but really understand how lopsided the tables are, then only those without the ability to reason would be able to make the case that somehow we are going to become a socialist country and this president is the one who's going to take us there.

Making affordable healthcare available, or at least the attempt to, is simply throwing the bottom 80% a bone. Cutting the tax break for the rich is throwing the bottom 80% a bone. The welfare system and food stamp program are simply there to keep the peace and keep violence and robbery to a minimum. None of these things affect the top 10% in any significant way. We spend way more tax dollars on corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the rich than we ever will on the poorest of the poor.
OK, the term socialism probably has taken on a more rhetorical meaning than literal - and while I don't think it levies anywhere near the impact of calling someone a "racist", or has the "nuclear effect" on a debate like accusing them of racism, your point is made.

Socialism can be defined in several manners, from the very radical concept of government controlling all economy and industry, to what is more fundamental with today's progressives; a societal stage transitional between capitalism and communism which is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Regardless of how you define it, or whether that definition is accurate, the fundamental opposition is clear. When government takes on a role, it always drive out the competition of individuals and private groups. When you work and earn something, you should be able to keep it without having it "redistributed" by an often flawed and corrupt government to people who have not earned it.

There's an old saying: Capitalism, for all it's flaws, teaches a man to fish. Socialism, for all it's classroom benefits, teaches a man he does not need to fish.

We can go round and round about how we define and think about socialism, but I'd rather leave it on this note. I'll not accuse Obama of being a socialist, without a factual example to back it up, if those on the left do not accuse me of being a "racist" without a factual example to back it up.(And my poking a stick at Bob for trolling around here pretending to be a Mexican does not count!:)

BTW: Speaking of playing the race card when unable to debate with facts and reality, I give you Oprah, and her defense of the horrific rollout of Obamacare :
http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffcrouere/20...

“There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs and that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American.”

Racism, real or manufactured, has NOTHING to do with peoples' opposition of this wretched law.
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

#48 Nov 22, 2013
Iseestupidpeople wrote:
<quoted text>
OK fair enough. Most republicans may not be racists but there is a certain vocal element where it cannot be denied. One doesn't need to go far to see examples of that right here on GR Topix.
Another way to end a debate in America? Bring up the word socialism. Time and time again we hear "This president is a socialist, commie, American-hating thug who's only goal is to dismantle our way of life and turn the population into a subservient flock of sheep dependant on the government."
First of all, we are not heading towards socialism. If you understand how the wealth is distributed in this country, and I don't mean have an 'idea' about it's distribution but really understand how lopsided the tables are, then only those without the ability to reason would be able to make the case that somehow we are going to become a socialist country and this president is the one who's going to take us there.
If this is a repeat post I apologize. Site is misbehavin'.

OK, the term socialism probably has taken on a more rhetorical meaning than literal - and while I don't think it levies anywhere near the impact of calling someone a "racist", or has the "nuclear effect" on a debate like accusing them of racism, your point is made.

Socialism can be defined in several manners, from the very radical concept of government controlling all economy and industry, to what is more fundamental with today's progressives; a societal stage transitional between capitalism and communism which is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Regardless of how you define it, or whether that definition is accurate, the fundamental opposition is clear. When government takes on a role, it always drive out the competition of individuals and private groups. When you work and earn something, you should be able to keep it without having it "redistributed" by an often flawed and corrupt government to people who have not earned it.

There's an old saying: Capitalism, for all it's flaws, teaches a man to fish. Socialism, for all it's classroom benefits, teaches a man he does not need to fish.

We can go round and round about how we define and think about socialism, but I'd rather leave it on this note. I'll not accuse Obama of being a socialist, without a factual example to back it up, if those on the left do not accuse me of being a "racist" without a factual example to back it up.(And my poking a stick at Bob for trolling around here pretending to be a Mexican does not count!:)

BTW: Speaking of playing the race card when unable to debate with facts and reality, I give you Oprah, and her defense of the horrific rollout of Obamacare :
http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffcrouere/20 ...

“There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs and that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American.”

Racism, real or manufactured, has NOTHING to do with peoples' opposition of this wretched law.
Iseestupidpeople

Grand Rapids, MI

#49 Nov 22, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
... a societal stage transitional between capitalism and communism which is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
The average CEO of America's top 350 companies make 273 times what their average paid worker makes, not the lowest paid worker, the average paid worker. 273 times! In 1960 the ratio was 20-1. Though it's not government related, would you consider this to be unequal distribution of pay according to work done?
Really

Wyoming, MI

#50 Nov 22, 2013
Iseestupidpeople wrote:
<quoted text>
The average CEO of America's top 350 companies make 273 times what their average paid worker makes, not the lowest paid worker, the average paid worker. 273 times! In 1960 the ratio was 20-1. Though it's not government related, would you consider this to be unequal distribution of pay according to work done?
And this is why there is no discussion with progressives. You don't make things "equal" or "fair" by taking from the producers and giving to anyone else you choose! And wringing your hands and yelling "it's not fair" solves nothing. For the risks the CEO's take, they are compensated. Stop thinking that a corrupt government will make that go away! For gosh sakes! Look up the numbers on who contributed to Obama and how much AND then note which industries those very contributors are from. If it doesn't set off your shit detector, you don't have one!
Iseestupidprople

Grand Rapids, MI

#51 Nov 22, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And this is why there is no discussion with progressives. You don't make things "equal" or "fair" by taking from the producers and giving to anyone else you choose! And wringing your hands and yelling "it's not fair" solves nothing. For the risks the CEO's take, they are compensated. Stop thinking that a corrupt government will make that go away! For gosh sakes! Look up the numbers on who contributed to Obama and how much AND then note which industries those very contributors are from. If it doesn't set off your shit detector, you don't have one!
I've talked about my feelings on Obama and Wall Street on a previous post. Maybe you should go back and read them before you accuse me of being a hypocrite. I won't get into the discussion of producers being forced to give away their money to anyone I choose and what you think I think is 'fair'. First off, I don't think you'd read the post anyway and secondly, wasting anytime with a thought out response would probably go over your head if you did.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#52 Nov 22, 2013
Iseestupidpeople wrote:
<quoted text>
The average CEO of America's top 350 companies make 273 times what their average paid worker makes, not the lowest paid worker, the average paid worker. 273 times! In 1960 the ratio was 20-1. Though it's not government related, would you consider this to be unequal distribution of pay according to work done?
There's millions of companies in America that do not have anywhere near that ratio of pay disparity.
I know the companies I've worked for and the CEO's, as well as the business I own. The pay and bonuses are appropriate and a reflection of the work that is done, the experience, and the increase in profits that person is responsible for. In many cases the CEO is also the owner, CFO, the mid-tier manager and the guy who sometimes takes out the trash,- they're also the person who risked a great deal to start up a company that supplies jobs and benefits to it's employees. A business owner is inherently and financially tied to his business and deserves to be paid for the risk.
OhOhObaama

Saline, MI

#53 Nov 22, 2013
Iseestupidpeople wrote:
<quoted text>
The average CEO of America's top 350 companies make 273 times what their average paid worker makes, not the lowest paid worker, the average paid worker. 273 times! In 1960 the ratio was 20-1. Though it's not government related, would you consider this to be unequal distribution of pay according to work done?
So, then send all the rich people to china if you hate them so bad.
Clinton signed NAFTA, factories still being sent away, move away, and your Obama guy ani't doing squat.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#54 Nov 22, 2013
Clinton may have signed NAFTA into law, dip-shit but check out who's idea NAFTA actually was, its origin, who ratified it and which party in Congress (both House and Senate) voted overwhelmingly for it.

Go find it dip-shit and then get back to me. Till then just STFU, of like I said, you risking someone stuffing your ignorant pie hole with the most rigid member of their nether regions.
Iseestupidprople

Grand Rapids, MI

#55 Nov 22, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
There's millions of companies in America that do not have anywhere near that ratio of pay disparity.
I know the companies I've worked for and the CEO's, as well as the business I own. The pay and bonuses are appropriate and a reflection of the work that is done, the experience, and the increase in profits that person is responsible for. In many cases the CEO is also the owner, CFO, the mid-tier manager and the guy who sometimes takes out the trash,- they're also the person who risked a great deal to start up a company that supplies jobs and benefits to it's employees. A business owner is inherently and financially tied to his business and deserves to be paid for the risk.
Absolutely they need to be paid for the task. No one is arguing that. But just look at what has happened since the 1950s and 60s. 20:1 to 273:1? JC Penny's CEO Ron Johnson was paid $53 million in 2011. That's 1,795 times the average worker. Meanwhile stocks dropped 73% during his tenure and the company is about to go under. Did he earn that money? From 1978 - 2012 the average worker's salary had experienced a growth rate of about 5.4%. During that same time CEO rates went up 875%. Meanwhile unions have been crushed, any voice the working man had is gone and the middle class is getting squashed. I'm not a union guy, never was, but why are we against a janitor making $45,000 year but OK with a CEO making hundreds of times more than the average worker? As consumers we all pay for it.

I agree with you when it comes to regular business owners and CEOs of small business. The owner, the one who took risks to start a company deserves to be compensated and even get filthy rich as long as his company remains profitable and his workers are paid fairly. This is about the big guns, the ones who have lobbyists wine-ing and dining lawmakers in DC. In the 1950s and 60s when the ratio was 20:1 for the biggest corporations was that just way too low. Of course back then we had a strong middle class and if one was willing to work hard, could afford to enjoy life, and support their family without living week to week. The wealth distribution was still lopsided but nowhere to the degree that it is today. Im not saying that CEO pay killed this country all by itself but that it's symptomatic of where we are now.

The top 5% are doing OK. They've got Washington on their side. No need to pity them if their tax rates go up .034%. I just think when people bring up the whole wealth distribution thing they ought to look at how our wealth is distributed NOW. If 10% of the population controlling 83% of wealth and 80% divvying up the scrappy 7% left at the bottom is the ideal economic situation then I guess I just don't have my hand on the pulse of this country.
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#56 Nov 22, 2013
Iseestupidprople wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely they need to be paid for the task. No one is arguing that. But just look at what has happened since the 1950s and 60s. 20:1 to 273:1? JC Penny's CEO Ron Johnson was paid $53 million in 2011. That's 1,795 times the average worker. Meanwhile stocks dropped 73% during his tenure and the company is about to go under. Did he earn that money? From 1978 - 2012 the average worker's salary had experienced a growth rate of about 5.4%. During that same time CEO rates went up 875%. Meanwhile unions have been crushed, any voice the working man had is gone and the middle class is getting squashed. I'm not a union guy, never was, but why are we against a janitor making $45,000 year but OK with a CEO making hundreds of times more than the average worker? As consumers we all pay for it.
I agree with you when it comes to regular business owners and CEOs of small business. The owner, the one who took risks to start a company deserves to be compensated and even get filthy rich as long as his company remains profitable and his workers are paid fairly. This is about the big guns, the ones who have lobbyists wine-ing and dining lawmakers in DC. In the 1950s and 60s when the ratio was 20:1 for the biggest corporations was that just way too low. Of course back then we had a strong middle class and if one was willing to work hard, could afford to enjoy life, and support their family without living week to week. The wealth distribution was still lopsided but nowhere to the degree that it is today. Im not saying that CEO pay killed this country all by itself but that it's symptomatic of where we are now.
The top 5% are doing OK. They've got Washington on their side. No need to pity them if their tax rates go up .034%. I just think when people bring up the whole wealth distribution thing they ought to look at how our wealth is distributed NOW. If 10% of the population controlling 83% of wealth and 80% divvying up the scrappy 7% left at the bottom is the ideal economic situation then I guess I just don't have my hand on the pulse of this country.
I see nothing in what the progressives are offering that solves the problem. I just see them using the promise of distribution as a vote-garnering tool.

A Berkeley study which found that 95 percent of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top one percent, which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole wealth redistribution thing. President Obama conceded the point.

That was from ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos in Sept.
OhOhObaama

Saline, MI

#57 Nov 22, 2013
pipedream wrote:
Clinton may have signed NAFTA into law, dip-shit but check out who's idea NAFTA actually was, its origin, who ratified it and which party in Congress (both House and Senate) voted overwhelmingly for it.
Go find it dip-shit and then get back to me. Till then just STFU, of like I said, you risking someone stuffing your ignorant pie hole with the most rigid member of their nether regions.
Ya well, STFU until your boy fixes it, till then the T Party rules.

Cuz we DON'T want unfair trade, dweeblett

And Clinton should not have signed it if he was to "help the poor" lololozzzzzzzzzzzzzzz two faced dems
Really

Wyoming, MI

#58 Nov 23, 2013
Iseestupidprople wrote:
<quoted text>
I've talked about my feelings on Obama and Wall Street on a previous post. Maybe you should go back and read them before you accuse me of being a hypocrite. I won't get into the discussion of producers being forced to give away their money to anyone I choose and what you think I think is 'fair'. First off, I don't think you'd read the post anyway and secondly, wasting anytime with a thought out response would probably go over your head if you did.
I did read your posts there pipester/bobby/etc, etc. Of course you won't join the discussion on "wealth redistribution" because that subject makes you uncomfortable and shows you for the hypocrite you are. And insulting me is a typical progressive idea for "discussion".
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#59 Nov 23, 2013
LOL This bagger's excuse for his addictions is Obamacare.

http://www.newslo.com/rep-radel-blames-cocain...

The last paragraph is priceless!

"The Florida representative made no mention of resigning, but instead implied that he would return to the House after seeking treatment for his substance abuse problems, saying,“Once qualified medical professionals have guided me through my addiction, I promise my constituents that I shall return to the House to continue the fight against policies that would allow them to get the same help.”
setrlvr

Lake Odessa, MI

#60 Nov 23, 2013
pipedream wrote:
LOL This bagger's excuse for his addictions is Obamacare.
http://w ww.newslo.com/rep-radel-blames-cocaine-bust-o...
The last paragraph is priceless!
"The Florida representative made no mention of resigning, but instead implied that he would return to the House after seeking treatment for his substance abuse problems, saying,“Once qualified medical professionals have guided me through my addiction, I promise my constituents that I shall return to the House to continue the fight against policies that would allow them to get the same help.”
Dude, you won't leave either!
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#61 Nov 23, 2013
OhOhObaama wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya well, STFU until your boy fixes it, till then the T Party rules.
Tea parties are for girls. Do you curtsy too?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Grand Rapids man robbed at Nunica Rest Stop (Jan '09) 44 min Go Blue Forever 4
Back in Iraq. WMD's? oil? 47 min Oneal 50
Bengazi is back 49 min pipedream 100
Local News Women (Apr '09) 6 hr Victoria 2,305
three white guys get wacked . . . 6 hr bobolinq 1
MI Who do you support for Attorney General in Mich... (Oct '10) 6 hr Ann 126
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 20 hr James Minier 946
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••