Michele Bachmann

Damn, Scott gettin N-volved!

I'm red, by the way.

rushfan4 wrote: Epignosis wrote: fusionfreak wrote: I don't care about economics but about people.Countries should sign a world agreement on minimum wage and also on taxes because rich people never pay and make the poor pay,that's not fair.Banksters always despise State and prefer relying on themselves,ok then so when you fail don't ask some help and shut up!Be logical for Godness Sake!I'm poor so I'm not going to vote for people who wish to impoverish the poor!Minimum wage should be the global rule and it must be raised,Rich should pay their taxes,Davos,like Wall Street,City....., should disappear.I know I'm a dreamer but Tierra y Libertad!    1. You can't care about people without caring about economics.  Rich people aren't rich just because they're rich.  The wealth was generated somehow- not magically.  Likewise, poor people aren't magically poor- there are reasons for this.  These reasons are a part of economics.  Some are worthwhile...some are not.  There are plenty of rich who got there via unscrupulous means of themselves or their forefathers...and there are plenty of poor whose forefathers generated that situation for them and noone has yet to break that cycle. Context- I am merely commenting that fusionfreak does not care about economics.  My entire point here is contextual: There is a reason people get rich and a reason people get poor.  None of this occurs in a vacuum.  It occurs because of economics. 2 .There is no way to enforce such a world agreement.  The only recourse an international governing body would have is going to war (which I assume you do not desire) or imposing trade embargoes, which will make everybody poorer (especially the poor).  It is interesting that there are many jobs that have come back to the US after having been transferred to India and Mexico, because the piddly wages grew exponentially in those countries and the quality of work received sucked.  But trade embargoes and tariffs could be used to greater effect to level the playing field.  There's a reason those jobs went overseas in the first place.  Our government requires us to pay more for the same (some would argue less) work and dedication than can be found elsewhere.  I don't see how the trade embargo against Cuba helps poor Cubans, 3. A person making $100 million a year will pay more taxes in one year than an impoverished person will pay his entire life. WHY DO 7,000 MILLIONAIRES PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES? http://blogs.cfed.org/cfed_news_clips/2011/06/76-million-families-and-7000-m.html Libertarians would have no one paying income taxes, by the way.  We see all income tax as evil.  To your specific question, I'll give you the by-the-book Libertarian answer: Government.  Government makes the laws.  I don't.  You don't.  We have the IRS tax code (no need to tell you about that), and it is behemoth, yes?  If 7000 millionaires don't pay income tax, it's the government's fault.  I have advocated a way that richer people will inadvertently pay more, but taxing anyone's income is stupid and counterproductive.  By the way, your response wasn't exactly a rebuttal of what I had to say. 4. I actually agree about the...erm..."banksters" relying on themselves (and their investors and clientele) rather than on government subsidies and bailouts. Scourge of the free world are those banksters.  I am included in a class action suit against Bank of America.  5. I am being logical.  And a good speller. Wot?  Scott can't even spell "what" correctly!  Laugh at him to discredit his opinions!  6. I'm poor, and I don't wish to vote for anyone who wants to further impoverish poor people either.  That's why I don't vote for those who would cheapen our money by increasing the minimum wage. Your choice.  I don't trust businesses to do the right thing and although a minimum wage really means jacksh*t it is better than what would happen without one.  But this can be argued forever and both answers are both right and wrong and the correct answer is somewhere in between.  You said it yourself earlier: Raising minimum wage to $100,000 would raise the cost of living, right?  So why is it moral (or even a good thing) to raise it to $7.50?  Doesn't the same principle apply? 7. Rich people do more for poor people than any government entity ever has or ever can.  I don't do anything for people.     Well, other than download their CDs when they are released.   Scott, you just implied you are rich.    And whether you are or aren't, thanks man.   8. Do you even know what Wall Street is?  A street paved with gold?  Never been there. Don't really care to go.

Edited by Epignosis - July 12 2011 at 18:53

Is it too late to change the title of this thread to "Why the minimum wage sucks"?

95% of the posts have nothing to do with you and your trolling thread.

Them being women is the obvious one, but I think them being more popular than those others mentioned is the more likely reason. They should all be hated though.

thellama73 wrote: What I don't get is why Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin inspire such an outpouring of hatred. You don't see threads like this about Herman Cain or Gary Johnson, both of whom have said things that I'm sure Textbook would consider insane. Mike Huckabee was just as socially conservative as Palin in '08, but he didn't get this level of criticism. I'll just leave that as an open question.

Huckabee may be just as socially conservative as Palin on paper, but based on the statements he makes on his show, he also appears to be moderate on key issues as entitlement reform and seems to be open to compromise in many other areas

thellama73 wrote: What I don't get is why Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin inspire such an outpouring of hatred. You don't see threads like this about Herman Cain or Gary Johnson, both of whom have said things that I'm sure Textbook would consider insane. Mike Huckabee was just as socially conservative as Palin in '08, but he didn't get this level of criticism. I'll just leave that as an open question.

Huckabee is very likeable even if you disagree with him, while Sarah and Michele have much more aggressive, grating personalities. His beliefs may be similar, but he phrases them better so they don't sound so outrageous because he actually thinks before he speaks, and as David noted he isn't as strongly CUT THE GOVERNMENT!!!! Literally nobody cares about Herman Cain and Gary Johnson so it seems silly to get upset about them. 

Edited by Henry Plainview - July 12 2011 at 21:04

Huckabee isn't a braying ass a la Palin or Bachmann. The guy has some sense of propriety and dignity when he speaks.

Bachman and Palin are horrible because they have said so many stupid things and are aggressive. Now, men candidates have also done the former but are less frequently caught being the latter.

I would vote for Bachmann over Santorum for sure though. And Cain. And Giuliani. And all the social-control freaks out there. Oh, wait, she's also a social control freak who wants to teach people morality.

All candidates are disgusting but one.

And it's not Johnson, who is as libertarian as I was 8 months ago...Actually, I think I was more of an enemy of the relationship between government and corporations than he is...

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Them being women is the obvious one, but I think them being more popular than those others mentioned is the more likely reason. They should all be hated though.

Nah, it has more to do with them being ignorant and proud of it.

zappaholic wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Them being women is the obvious one, but I think them being more popular than those others mentioned is the more likely reason. They should all be hated though. Nah, it has more to do with them being ignorant and proud of it.

Exactly, we already tried that for eight years under GW Bush and that didn't work out so well for most of us.

Anyone for Thaddeus McCotter?  He plays guitar, you know.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 13 2011 at 06:41