PDA

View Full Version : Tea Party 48% Obama 44%



bijou
04-05-2010, 09:14 AM
On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President. ...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44

ralph wiggum
04-05-2010, 09:29 AM
Rasmussen is just a right-wing mouthpiece!!111 (DU mode)

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 09:34 AM
Rasmussen is just a right-wing mouthpiece!!111 (DU mode)

I know. How dare they be right and accurate! :D

Apache
04-05-2010, 09:44 AM
Sixty-three percent (63%) of Mainstream Americans say their views are closer to the Tea Party.

This number is far more relevant...

namvet
04-05-2010, 09:51 AM
not bad for thugs, gangsters and nazi's. :D

Gingersnap
04-05-2010, 11:05 AM
This number is far more relevant...

I caught that, too! :D

FlaGator
04-05-2010, 11:06 AM
Let's DU this poll!!!!

NJCardFan
04-05-2010, 11:42 AM
This poll is a misnomer. The Tea Party doesn't have a dog in the fight. And polls with a general candidate vs. an established candidate rarely goes in the established candidate's favor. This is why I don't take this poll seriously. The number Apache quoted is the one that is more important.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 02:46 PM
This poll is a misnomer. The Tea Party doesn't have a dog in the fight. And polls with a general candidate vs. an established candidate rarely goes in the established candidate's favor. This is why I don't take this poll seriously. The number Apache quoted is the one that is more important.

This is why I think the Tea Party people actually have a shot at a third party candidate.

Even if they don't win head to head against OBama (they won't) they could still pick up seats in congress and actually have some political pull.

AmPat
04-05-2010, 02:51 PM
This is why I think the Tea Party people actually have a shot at a third party candidate.

Even if they don't win head to head against OBama (they won't) they could still pick up seats in congress and actually have some political pull.

Nice try.:rolleyes: This only works on the weak-minded, you know, like liberals.:cool: The GOP doesn't need self serving suggestions from their enemy. The last thing we need is a third party that would ensure a turd party (DIMRATS) victory.

lacarnut
04-05-2010, 02:52 PM
This is why I think the Tea Party people actually have a shot at a third party candidate.

Even if they don't win head to head against OBama (they won't) they could still pick up seats in congress and actually have some political pull.

Running 3rd party candidates would be the only way that Democraps would not get slaughtered in Nov. Thanks but not thanks..... nice try though.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 02:52 PM
Imagine if the Tea Party could pick up just 20-35 seats. It wouldn't be huge or anything and they wouldn't win the presidency but they could be the make-or-break votes on important issues.

I hate the two party system.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 02:55 PM
I would be perfectly happy if in addition to the Democrats and Republicans we got a real Tea Party and Workers Party in congress. Even if the D's and R's still dominate, the influence of the other two would be a much needed change.

Speedy
04-05-2010, 03:06 PM
I think that candidates even if they run as Republicans (no Democrat would seriously court the Tea Party), Tea Party candidates can let it be known that the Tea Party is where they stand. They can wrap themselves in Tea Party principles. After November, they can switch to a true Tea Party. This would benefit the Tea Party as they would have the clout of already having members in Congress.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 04:40 PM
Imagine if the Tea Party could pick up just 20-35 seats. It wouldn't be huge or anything and they wouldn't win the presidency but they could be the make-or-break votes on important issues.

I hate the two party system.

Of course you would. Makes your side taking and keeping control much harder. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 05:22 PM
Of course you would. Makes your side taking and keeping control much harder. :rolleyes:

My side? I strongly side with middle and working class people, and both Dems and Republicans are poor at supporting these people. I would support a Workers Party.

Speedy
04-05-2010, 05:54 PM
My side? I strongly side with middle and working class people, and both Dems and Republicans are poor at supporting these people. I would support a Workers Party.

I side with those that do the hiring and pay the wages. When these do well, the workers do very well also.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:09 PM
My side? I strongly side with middle and working class people, and both Dems and Republicans are poor at supporting these people. I would support a Workers Party.

You're nothing but a dumbass fucking communist. You're side is the left fucktard. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 06:34 PM
I side with those that do the hiring and pay the wages. When these do well, the workers do very well also.

That's not true. Fox News just did a report a few minutes ago showing that people who work for the Federal Government make more money and get more benefits than people with similar jobs in the private sector.

They identified the key difference as the Profit Motive.

Profit motive means that employers will pay their workers as little as possible, no good business man pays his workers very well just because he feels for them.

Megaguns91
04-05-2010, 06:36 PM
That's not true. Fox News just did a report a few minutes ago showing that people who work for the Federal Government make more money and get more benefits than people with similar jobs in the private sector.

They identified the key difference as the Profit Motive.

Profit motive means that employers will pay their workers as little as possible, no good business man pays his workers very well just because he feels for them.

More liberal bullshit outta the mouth of the beast itself.

My boss pays me well and pays our healthcare premiums as well.
I work for a private company.
Opportunity is where those who are ambitious enough to find it see fit.
He's one of them guys that built his company from the ground up, cutting out the middle man and respecting him employees.
Suck on that lemon for a while, my furry little friend.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:37 PM
That's not true. Fox News just did a report a few minutes ago showing that people who work for the Federal Government make more money and get more benefits than people with similar jobs in the private sector.

They identified the key difference as the Profit Motive.

Profit motive means that employers will pay their workers as little as possible, no good business man pays his workers very well just because he feels for them.

FUCKTARD it means that the government is paying inflated wages and government employees are generally parasites living off the work of others. :rolleyes:

Lager
04-05-2010, 06:41 PM
That's not true. Fox News just did a report a few minutes ago showing that people who work for the Federal Government make more money and get more benefits than people with similar jobs in the private sector.

They identified the key difference as the Profit Motive.

Profit motive means that employers will pay their workers as little as possible, no good business man pays his workers very well just because he feels for them.

That's only true to a point. Workers at the lower levels in govt, due tend to have better pay and benefits. At the higher levels though, it is not true. Look at the postal service for example. The lower ranks have better pay and benefits than their private counterparts, but upper management and executives aren't paid as well as their counterparts, hence the lack of talent that explains a lot of that agency's problems.

You also ignore companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Toyota etc. who pay their employees well because they realize the benefit of skilled and happy workers.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 06:46 PM
That's only true to a point. Workers at the lower levels in govt, due tend to have better pay and benefits. At the higher levels though, it is not true. Look at the postal service for example. The lower ranks have better pay and benefits than their private counterparts, but upper management and executives aren't paid as well as their counterparts, hence the lack of talent that explains a lot of that agency's problems.

You also ignore companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Toyota etc. who pay their employees well because they realize the benefit of skilled and happy workers.

This is true, higher end wages are higher in the private sector. The private sector benefits those who make a lot of money (quarter of a million per year or more) while it doesn't benefit those who make less (most of the population).

Speedy
04-05-2010, 07:31 PM
That's not true. Fox News just did a report a few minutes ago showing that people who work for the Federal Government make more money and get more benefits than people with similar jobs in the private sector.

The difference is that the Government does not have to show a profit. If it runs over budget, it gets a bigger budget next year. No one in the private sector could pay what the Government pays and stay viable.

Your fucking problem is that youo think that "the workers" deserve an equal slice of the pie as the owners of the business do. As one who has both worked for others and ran his own businesses I can tell you that it is a crock of shit.

When I had one of my businesses I had a Hummer H2. I took vacations in Vegas and had plenty of money in the bank. I also had hundred of thousands of dollars invested in my business and inventory. You are of the opinion that because I had employees, I should have lived as much as a pauper as those working for me. I paid them what I thought their labor was worth. I had EMPLOYEES not PARTNERS.

You guys point and, "Profit! Profit Bad!" Like you deserve a piece of everything where you work and think that you have a right to it because they have it and you don't.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 08:00 PM
The difference is that the Government does not have to show a profit. If it runs over budget, it gets a bigger budget next year. No one in the private sector could pay what the Government pays and stay viable.

That is the big difference. However, I don't think it's fair to say that it has to work in extremes, that is, totally unregulated private sector vs totally controlled government sector. Afterall, in most other western countries their workers make higher wages and the difference in earnings between their top executives and their average workers are smaller (but still very large, of course) and their companies do just fine.

We just happen to work with exceptionally high profits and exceptionally disproportionate pay scales, but that isn't necessary for the market to function.



Your fucking problem is that youo think that "the workers" deserve an equal slice of the pie as the owners of the business do. As one who has both worked for others and ran his own businesses I can tell you that it is a crock of shit.

It would be nice for the workers to BE the owners, but if we're still thinking realistically within our capitalist system I think workers deserve a larger slice of the pie (but of course not equal or even close to equal).


When I had one of my businesses I had a Hummer H2. I took vacations in Vegas and had plenty of money in the bank. I also had hundred of thousands of dollars invested in my business and inventory. You are of the opinion that because I had employees, I should have lived as much as a pauper as those working for me. I paid them what I thought their labor was worth. I had EMPLOYEES not PARTNERS.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable response. You work for your business and if you expect to continue living your lifestyle and to compete with other business owners you cannot be expected to pay your workers significantly more than others do. This is totally natural and the reason for both capitalism's success and it's failures.

This is why our system works but it's also the source of the big problems with it, if we had a strong workers lobby push for policies that benefitted the workers, you might have to pay them more or give them more benefits or better stock options or whatever might hypothetically pass, but so would all of your competators. Would you see a decrease in your income? Yes, assuming you're pulling in large enough dollars to put you into the top 5% you would see a decrease in income but you would still be living very comfortably, still be living better than your workers and better than most Americans, and your business would be able to stay successful and competitive despite the added costs because that same cost would apply to other businesses too.



You guys point and, "Profit! Profit Bad!" Like you deserve a piece of everything where you work and think that you have a right to it because they have it and you don't.

Profit works, but sometimes the profit motive can work against us. Just like the Sex Drive in animals, it's what keeps the system working each generation but letting that sex drive run totally out of check and at the expense of other drives will cause problems for the organism.

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 08:16 PM
That is the big difference. However, I don't think it's fair to say that it has to work in extremes, that is, totally unregulated private sector vs totally controlled government sector. Afterall, in most other western countries their workers make higher wages and the difference in earnings between their top executives and their average workers are smaller (but still very large, of course) and their companies do just fine.

We just happen to work with exceptionally high profits and exceptionally disproportionate pay scales, but that isn't necessary for the market to function.




It would be nice for the workers to BE the owners, but if we're still thinking realistically within our capitalist system I think workers deserve a larger slice of the pie (but of course not equal or even close to equal).



I think this is a perfectly reasonable response. You work for your business and if you expect to continue living your lifestyle and to compete with other business owners you cannot be expected to pay your workers significantly more than others do. This is totally natural and the reason for both capitalism's success and it's failures.

This is why our system works but it's also the source of the big problems with it, if we had a strong workers lobby push for policies that benefitted the workers, you might have to pay them more or give them more benefits or better stock options or whatever might hypothetically pass, but so would all of your competators. Would you see a decrease in your income? Yes, assuming you're pulling in large enough dollars to put you into the top 5% you would see a decrease in income but you would still be living very comfortably, still be living better than your workers and better than most Americans, and your business would be able to stay successful and competitive despite the added costs because that same cost would apply to other businesses too.




Profit works, but sometimes the profit motive can work against us. Just like the Sex Drive in animals, it's what keeps the system working each generation but letting that sex drive run totally out of check and at the expense of other drives will cause problems for the organism.

If you want a bigger piece of the pie, apply yourself, work hard, and buy it!

Speedy
04-05-2010, 08:42 PM
It would be nice for the workers to BE the owners, but if we're still thinking realistically within our capitalist system I think workers deserve a larger slice of the pie (but of course not equal or even close to equal).

And why would the workers bring to the table? I start a business, I invest money, capital, equipment, pay for the permits and what would the workers chip in? Thier labor? Are your really that stupid?

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 08:46 PM
If you want a bigger piece of the pie, apply yourself, work hard, and buy it!

:mad: HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST HE WORK. FASCIST!! :mad:

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 08:59 PM
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/funny-pictures-cat-makes-money.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 10:49 PM
If you want a bigger piece of the pie, apply yourself, work hard, and buy it!

I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about workers in general. Workers deserve a bigger piece of the pie.

The top 10% of the population owns about 70% of the "Wealth Pie", the bottom 90% owns the other 30%

If we look at financial assets, the top 1% owns half of it, the bottom 90% owns 15%.

Even looking at the lowest common denominator, simple income, the top 20% makes just over half of it, and the bottom 80% splits the rest.


I'm not talking about some radical communist revolution, I'm talking about just fixing these astounding gaps. Workers in most other countries have realized this and pushed for worker-friendly policies, now most of their workers make higher wages and enjoy better benefits than most of our workers. Still, their economies are still capitalist they aren't shoving people into gulags and their businesses still profit.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 10:54 PM
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about workers in general. Workers deserve a bigger piece of the pie.

The top 10% of the population owns about 70% of the "Wealth Pie", the bottom 90% owns the other 30%

If we look at financial assets, the top 1% owns half of it, the bottom 90% owns 15%.

Even looking at the lowest common denominator, simple income, the top 20% makes just over half of it, and the bottom 80% splits the rest.


I'm not talking about some radical communist revolution, I'm talking about just fixing these astounding gaps. Workers in most other countries have realized this and pushed for worker-friendly policies, now most of their workers make higher wages and enjoy better benefits than most of our workers. Still, their economies are still capitalist they aren't shoving people into gulags and their businesses still profit.

LIES.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 11:00 PM
I'm not lying bud, those wealth stats come from the Federal Reserve board and the income stats from the Census Bureau

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 11:02 PM
I'm not lying bud, those wealth stats come from the Federal Reserve board and the income stats from the Census Bureau

lies.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 11:09 PM
"lies"? That's it? Simple blanket denial? Well I don't know what to tell you, the facts are the facts. You know political ideology can be taken all the way to full identification with the ideological subject, so that a disturbance in your political worldview can be experienced as a true existential threat. In the face of that threat, denial is a common defensive response.

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 11:12 PM
"lies"? That's it? Simple blanket denial? Well I don't know what to tell you, the facts are the facts. You know political ideology can be taken all the way to full identification with the ideological subject, so that a disturbance in your political worldview can be experienced as a true existential threat. In the face of that threat, denial is a common defensive response.

You know your parents were wrong, it's okay to play with plastic bags and electricity! They don't want you to have any fun, go ahead.:cool:

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 11:13 PM
So are regression, projection, and humor. ;)

Speedy
04-05-2010, 11:14 PM
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about workers in general. Workers deserve a bigger piece of the pie.

The top 10% of the population owns about 70% of the "Wealth Pie", the bottom 90% owns the other 30%

If we look at financial assets, the top 1% owns half of it, the bottom 90% owns 15%.

Even looking at the lowest common denominator, simple income, the top 20% makes just over half of it, and the bottom 80% splits the rest.

And what will the workers do that gives them a right to a bigger piece of the pie? The employer pours money into his business, what does the worker have to offer but his labor? The reason the top owns so much at the top is because they have invested and capitalized that much of the top. There is no fucking a worker deserves even a sliver of a slice of the pie just because he works there. If I start a business and a worker wants a piece of the pie then he can chip in for as big a pie as he wants. Just by showing up he deserves nothing but the wages and benefits I offer. They are EMPLOYEES not PARTNERS and should not be compensated in anywhere near a partner should be.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 11:22 PM
"lies"? That's it? Simple blanket denial? Well I don't know what to tell you, the facts are the facts. You know political ideology can be taken all the way to full identification with the ideological subject, so that a disturbance in your political worldview can be experienced as a true existential threat. In the face of that threat, denial is a common defensive response.

Facts are verifiable and backed up. You back NOTHING up. LIES. Pure and simple.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 11:27 PM
And what will the workers do that gives them a right to a bigger piece of the pie? The employer pours money into his business, what does the worker have to offer but his labor? The reason the top owns so much at the top is because they have invested and capitalized that much of the top. There is no fucking a worker deserves even a sliver of a slice of the pie just because he works there. If I start a business and a worker wants a piece of the pie then he can chip in for as big a pie as he wants. Just by showing up he deserves nothing but the wages and benefits I offer. They are EMPLOYEES not PARTNERS and should not be compensated in anywhere near a partner should be.

Now we can argue about what's fair for workers, and I suspect I would argue that workers deserve more. Yes owners invest in the business but the workers actually make the business works. The workers manufacture the things, the workers provide the services, the workers show up day after day and actually DO what it is being traded for money.

Now, I'm not saying that in our economy workers should get paid as much as owners, but come on, in 1965 the average CEO made 24 times more than the average worker. Is that "fair"? Well, those at the top have (arguably) tougher jobs that require more specialization and training and skills. So it is expected that they make more, I get that.


The difference though is just ridiculous, in 2005, the average CEO made 262 times more than the average worker.


Those differences are worlds apart.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 11:28 PM
Now we can argue about what's fair for workers, and I suspect I would argue that workers deserve more. Yes owners invest in the business but the workers actually make the business works. The workers manufacture the things, the workers provide the services, the workers show up day after day and actually DO what it is being traded for money.

Now, I'm not saying that in our economy workers should get paid as much as owners, but come on, in 1965 the average CEO made 24 times more than the average worker. Is that "fair"? Well, those at the top have (arguably) tougher jobs that require more specialization and training and skills. So it is expected that they make more, I get that.


The difference though is just ridiculous, in 2005, the average CEO made 262 times more than the average worker.


Those differences are worlds apart.

More lies.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 11:30 PM
Facts are verifiable and backed up. You back NOTHING up. LIES. Pure and simple.

The wealth info was from a 2006 article from the Federal Reserve Board by Arthur Kennickell called Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989-2004

The Income info was from a 2006 report from the Census Bureau: 2006 Historical Income Tables - Households

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 11:33 PM
The wealth info was from a 2006 article from the Federal Reserve Board by Arthur Kennickell called Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989-2004

The Income info was from a 2006 report from the Census Bureau: 2006 Historical Income Tables - Households

Prove it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 11:39 PM
I can't force you to accept something, I cited my sources for you if that's too hard then just google "wealth distribution" for the love of god it's not that hard unless you're actively TRYING to not see it.

Speedy
04-05-2010, 11:41 PM
The difference though is just ridiculous, in 2005, the average CEO made 262 times more than the average worker.


Those differences are worlds apart.

The CEO has a lot more 262 times invested in the business than the average worker.

Aparrently you have never owned or started a business. I have. I expect a certain amount in return from a business and every single time I have started one, I have never started one because I wanted to hire people. When I owned a gas station one single order of gasoline meant that I had to invest in a load of fuel more than my payroll ran in a month. I would buy 10000 gallons at 2.50. That amounted to $25,000. You know what I got for that? $100.00. That's it. A couple of hot checks, a drive off and I lose money.

When I had a hot shot service I had to invest in a lot equipment and I was liable for what I hauled. The "workers" were entitled to a predisposed amount of MY profit? Fuck that.

You know what happens if you try to impose your little, "the workers deserve more shit" on companies? Companies shutdown and what of the workers then?

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 11:48 PM
I can't force you to accept something, I cited my sources for you if that's too hard then just google "wealth distribution" for the love of god it's not that hard unless you're actively TRYING to not see it.

You did nothing of the sort. You made baseless claims of questionable 'facts' and then made baseless claims of sources. You have no credibility here so you're saying something is 'so' is not enough. You've been asked and INSTRUCTED on what to do and you continue to ignore what needs to be done. THEREFORE: everything you say is LIES until satisfactorily proven otherwise.

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 11:49 PM
The CEO has a lot more 262 times invested in the business than the average worker.

Aparrently you have never owned or started a business. I have. I expect a certain amount in return from a business and every single time I have started one, I have never started one because I wanted to hire people. When I owned a gas station one single order of gasoline meant that I had to invest in a load of fuel more than my payroll ran in a month. I would buy 10000 gallons at 2.50. That amounted to $25,000. You know what I got for that? $100.00. That's it. A couple of hot checks, a drive off and I lose money.

When I had a hot shot service I had to invest in a lot equipment and I was liable for what I hauled. The "workers" were entitled to a predisposed amount of MY profit? Fuck that.

You know what happens if you try to impose your little, "the workers deserve more shit" on companies? Companies shutdown and what of the workers then?

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/pimp.jpg?t=1270525730

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 11:52 PM
The CEO has a lot more 262 times invested in the business than the average worker.

Aparrently you have never owned or started a business. I have. I expect a certain amount in return from a business and every single time I have started one, I have never started one because I wanted to hire people. When I owned a gas station one single order of gasoline meant that I had to invest in a load of fuel more than my payroll ran in a month. I would buy 10000 gallons at 2.50. That amounted to $25,000. You know what I got for that? $100.00. That's it. A couple of hot checks, a drive off and I lose money.

When I had a hot shot service I had to invest in a lot equipment and I was liable for what I hauled. The "workers" were entitled to a predisposed amount of MY profit? Fuck that.

You know what happens if you try to impose your little, "the workers deserve more shit" on companies? Companies shutdown and what of the workers then?

There's a difference between small businesses and large corporations. I'm going to guess that with your small businesses you are describing you did not make 262 times as much as your workers. If you are paying your workers the federal minimum wage, you as the owner would be making an hourly wage of approx. $1,800 per hour.

If you're pulling in 15 thousand dollars a day (for yourself, when it's all said and done), then it's unlikely you were that close to skimming it.

I support looser regulations and lower taxes on small businesses and business owners like you are describing but once you're pulling in a solid yearly personal salary in the millions it's time to pay back into the system that's working so well for you.

Rockntractor
04-06-2010, 12:02 AM
There's a difference between small businesses and large corporations. I'm going to guess that with your small businesses you are describing you did not make 262 times as much as your workers. If you are paying your workers the federal minimum wage, you as the owner would be making an hourly wage of approx. $1,800 per hour.

If you're pulling in 15 thousand dollars a day (for yourself, when it's all said and done), then it's unlikely you were that close to skimming it.

I support looser regulations and lower taxes on small businesses and business owners like you are describing but once you're pulling in a solid yearly personal salary in the millions it's time to pay back into the system that's working so well for you.
You could be the head of a company if you are intelligent, make it a goal and are willing to sacrifice to get there. These people are the cream of the crop achievement wise. Do you look down on actors and professional sports too?

Swampfox
04-06-2010, 02:11 AM
This is why I think the Tea Party people actually have a shot at a third party candidate.

Even if they don't win head to head against OBama (they won't) they could still pick up seats in congress and actually have some political pull.

Wrong. The Tea Party needs to field actually economic conservative candidates into the Republican Party.

AmPat
04-06-2010, 10:37 AM
Now we can argue about what's fair for workers, and I suspect I would argue that workers deserve more. Yes owners invest in the business but the workers actually make the business works. The workers manufacture the things, the workers provide the services, the workers show up day after day and actually DO what it is being traded for money.


The workers show up day after day at the EMPLOYER"S chosen location to operate HIS business. They showed up to apply for a JOB. That job has requirements. If the WORKER does his JOB, he gets PAID by the EMPLOYER. As long as the EMPLOYER makes a PROFIT and the WORKER performs his DUTIES, the WORKER gets to continue EMPLOYMENT.

If the WORKER doesn't like it, he may go APPLY for another JOB where the same rules apply.:cool:

Lager
04-06-2010, 10:57 AM
There're a lot of individuals and corporations in this country who have accumulated large amounts of wealth. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Google, Wozniak, Ebay, Amazon, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, Mark Randolph, etc.
Most of them, through intelligence and innovation. They've been able to develope products and services that improve and enrich the lives of many. Because their innovations are popular and useful, many people desire and utilize them.

Let's think about that for a second. All these great technological breakthroughs seem to be coming from here, in America. Now how can that be? Why do you think that is, young wu wei?

If we are so unfair, our system so skewed toward the upper income levels, why is it that many of these folks who started with nothing more than an idea and an American education, could rise so high so easily? Why are so few of the great ideas and modern appiications not coming from your beloved Europe, where the workers are so fat and happy, and all is peaceful and in harmony?

But you know, not only have these individuals achieved great wealth for themselves, they've also enabled wealth for a multitude of others, as well as enriching all of our lives in one way or another.

You look at it as a piece of pie, which is finite. I say America is a country where brains and work ethic and a country which values them, means the size of the pie is always growing larger, and my piece can be as big as my appetite for hard work allows.