nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:That's the antithesis of socialism, which aims to limit the rise of an oligarchy. What you've described is merely unregulated capitalism, also known as corporatism.

I agree with everything else you had to say about Obamacare being a circle-jerk to insurance and other medical industries but would contest the notion that the cost of service is rising because of it. The reality is that medical costs were rising in spite of it because that's what happens when you have free enterprise that is poorly regulated. Because of the mandate, however, the increase that an average citizen has to pay has been mitigated by redistributing its burden among more people. At best, this is a bandaid policy and not the cure-all that some would like to profess. The reality though is that premiums have gone down because of Obamacare because of artificially inflating competition and moderating the risk.

You seem to really lack a sense of the big picture when it comes to Obamacare. This was a HUGE step in the right direction and something that many presidents have failed to accomplish for decades. It's probably one of the toughest things any president has been able to accomplish but it's just the start.

Cost is but one aspect of the positive things about Obamacare. There are so many improvements that came with the law that you have to also take note of all of them to get a better sense of just how monumental this was. The list is too long and deep to post here. Just know that it's more than just about lower premiums. It's a literal reform of many of the things the Healthcare industry has been screwing the consumer with for years.

http://obamacarefacts.com/summary-of-provisions-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act.php

Not to mention that it's a major stimulus measure as money is being sourced to lower income citizens. Also more jobs are being created to help care for the increase in patients. It's part of the recent increase in jobs. The more jobs people have the better. It creates a positive chain reaction in the economy. This is of course not really happening in the Red States that have rejected Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion.

Just Imagine how great we'd be doing if the Repubs hadn't blocked "The American Jobs Act" or funded Obama's idea for a new transportation Bill. Congress just did a meager $11 billion patch but Obama wants a $302 billion to improve infrastructure? That would create TONS of jobs and long term projects and make this country more competitive with the rest of the world. Somehow Repubs don't want to do this even tho it makes all the sense in the world. No states need money for jobs more than Red States and yet they don't do anything. Cutting off their nose to spite their face. They hurt their constituents just to deny Obama any success.

Dude, I'm aware of what is contained in Obamacare. But I don't feel the need to discuss the nuances of a 2000 page law with arkrud, whose only contention was about the financial aspect of it. Like I said before, the law is a step in the right direction but it is still negotiated on the same flawed principle that healthcare should be a for-profit enterprise.

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Silverfuel wrote:It's a shame that people are using this flight going down as an excuse to attack Obama but nixluva is the man in this thread.

I am not sure why nixluva and his opponents hijack the thread for Obamacare and Obama debate.
Obama administration together with Europeans allow Russia to do whatever they want, never insisted on creating no-fly zone above Esters Ukraine and now we see the consequences.
The tragedy is not only Russia and Ukraine responsibility but ours as well.
UN is just a bunch clowns capable on nothing and Europeans just a bunch of hypocrats.
US administration is nothing less of impotent and we as a nation don't give a damn about whats going on outside US.

You have to understand that The Obama Admin doesn't want an increased war zone in that area and if they get involved even deeper, it could inflame things.

You suggest a no fly zone without understanding how a "no fly zone" is enforced!!! You are being Naive. The US and EU don't control the skies over Russia or the boarder area with Ukraine. You have to use force to create a no fly zone and who would want to do that against Russia? More importantly the Russian separatists don't have aircraft so what are you hoping to accomplish with a no fly zone? The warnings about flying over that area were made to all countries and it was up to each to either heed the warning or ignore it.

As for the US being impotent understand that we have the ability to do something but that really only creates more problems. The use of sanctions is the right move and if only the EU would do the same then it would start to really work. This tragedy might just get them off their butts to actually follow the US and impose stronger sanctions. We've had enough wars and the American People don't want another. This is the reason they voted for Obama. So this is the will of the people.

I am not suggesting to go at war with Russia which is basically suggest an apocalypses.
US has no need to do anything military.
It is more that enough to stop all trade with Russia and freeze all financial transaction of Russian state and crony corporations.
By no- fly zone I meant not military enforced restrictions but directing all commercial and passenger traffic across Easter Ukraine elsewhere.
This was not done as we failed again to correctly gather intelligence of who the rebels are and what are their capabilities.
CIA and NSA may actually have the intelligence but it was too explosive to get it out.

Again you are oversimplifying the situation. The US and EU still need Russian cooperation in trouble areas of the world that Russia has influence. Syria and Iran Sanctions are a couple of key concerns. Yes big business is in bed with Russia as well, which is problematic. The world economy is very intertwined and it's hard to make big countries do the right thing if they disregard normal civilized behavior. Putin knows that and it taking advantage of the situation, but to what end? He's not really making the EU or US more comfortable with him as a partner. This will drive more a wedge between the countries.

You can't blame the US for the Malaysian decision to take that route. Most countries airlines have avoided the area so it was their decision alone. Why you're choosing to lay some blame on the US is beyond me. This is really all on Putin. Why the hell would he give the Separatists such a powerful weapon? He should've been lowering the heat in the conflict and instead he's escalated it. The blame is solely on Putin in this affair.

Putin's to blame for annexing a people that identify as ethnic Russians, who wanted to be part of Russia?

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Silverfuel wrote:It's a shame that people are using this flight going down as an excuse to attack Obama but nixluva is the man in this thread.

I am not sure why nixluva and his opponents hijack the thread for Obamacare and Obama debate.
Obama administration together with Europeans allow Russia to do whatever they want, never insisted on creating no-fly zone above Esters Ukraine and now we see the consequences.
The tragedy is not only Russia and Ukraine responsibility but ours as well.
UN is just a bunch clowns capable on nothing and Europeans just a bunch of hypocrats.
US administration is nothing less of impotent and we as a nation don't give a damn about whats going on outside US.

You have to understand that The Obama Admin doesn't want an increased war zone in that area and if they get involved even deeper, it could inflame things.

You suggest a no fly zone without understanding how a "no fly zone" is enforced!!! You are being Naive. The US and EU don't control the skies over Russia or the boarder area with Ukraine. You have to use force to create a no fly zone and who would want to do that against Russia? More importantly the Russian separatists don't have aircraft so what are you hoping to accomplish with a no fly zone? The warnings about flying over that area were made to all countries and it was up to each to either heed the warning or ignore it.

As for the US being impotent understand that we have the ability to do something but that really only creates more problems. The use of sanctions is the right move and if only the EU would do the same then it would start to really work. This tragedy might just get them off their butts to actually follow the US and impose stronger sanctions. We've had enough wars and the American People don't want another. This is the reason they voted for Obama. So this is the will of the people.

I am not suggesting to go at war with Russia which is basically suggest an apocalypses.
US has no need to do anything military.
It is more that enough to stop all trade with Russia and freeze all financial transaction of Russian state and crony corporations.
By no- fly zone I meant not military enforced restrictions but directing all commercial and passenger traffic across Easter Ukraine elsewhere.
This was not done as we failed again to correctly gather intelligence of who the rebels are and what are their capabilities.
CIA and NSA may actually have the intelligence but it was too explosive to get it out.

Again you are oversimplifying the situation. The US and EU still need Russian cooperation in trouble areas of the world that Russia has influence. Syria and Iran Sanctions are a couple of key concerns. Yes big business is in bed with Russia as well, which is problematic. The world economy is very intertwined and it's hard to make big countries do the right thing if they disregard normal civilized behavior. Putin knows that and it taking advantage of the situation, but to what end? He's not really making the EU or US more comfortable with him as a partner. This will drive more a wedge between the countries.

You can't blame the US for the Malaysian decision to take that route. Most countries airlines have avoided the area so it was their decision alone. Why you're choosing to lay some blame on the US is beyond me. This is really all on Putin. Why the hell would he give the Separatists such a powerful weapon? He should've been lowering the heat in the conflict and instead he's escalated it. The blame is solely on Putin in this affair.

Putin's to blame for annexing a people that identify as ethnic Russians, who wanted to be part of Russia?

He did it illegally. He can try and portray it as legitimate, but really he took Crimea for the Oil and Natural Gas off the Crimean Shore which belongs to Ukraine but if Russia annexes the area then they can exploit the oil.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea has totally upended Kiev’s plans for Black Sea and Sea of Azov offshore oil and natural gas production.

Before the peninsula’s March 16 independence referendum, followed two days later by Russian annexation, Ukraine’s state-owned Chornomornaftogaz (“Chernomorneftegaz” in Russian) owned 17 hydrocarbon fields, including 11 natural gas fields, four gas condensate fields, and two oil fields, along with 13 offshore platforms in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.
Among foreign companies interested in Crimea’s offshore hydrocarbon assets were ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Petrom.

Pre-annexation, Chornomornaftohaz also held a 100 percent interest in five offshore license blocs – Vostochno-Kazantipskoe in the Sea of Azov and Odesskoe, Bezymiannoe, Subbotina and Palasa in the Black Sea. Crimea was third in Ukrainian natural gas production after the Kharkov and Poltava regions.

And who gets to decide what is illegal or "legitimate"? The same countries that built their fortunes from doing the same thing without the indigenous people being able to vote on it? We occupied Iraq, a sovereign nation, under false pretenses just a year ago and we now get to **** on Putin for doing something far less egregious?

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Silverfuel wrote:It's a shame that people are using this flight going down as an excuse to attack Obama but nixluva is the man in this thread.

I am not sure why nixluva and his opponents hijack the thread for Obamacare and Obama debate.
Obama administration together with Europeans allow Russia to do whatever they want, never insisted on creating no-fly zone above Esters Ukraine and now we see the consequences.
The tragedy is not only Russia and Ukraine responsibility but ours as well.
UN is just a bunch clowns capable on nothing and Europeans just a bunch of hypocrats.
US administration is nothing less of impotent and we as a nation don't give a damn about whats going on outside US.

You have to understand that The Obama Admin doesn't want an increased war zone in that area and if they get involved even deeper, it could inflame things.

You suggest a no fly zone without understanding how a "no fly zone" is enforced!!! You are being Naive. The US and EU don't control the skies over Russia or the boarder area with Ukraine. You have to use force to create a no fly zone and who would want to do that against Russia? More importantly the Russian separatists don't have aircraft so what are you hoping to accomplish with a no fly zone? The warnings about flying over that area were made to all countries and it was up to each to either heed the warning or ignore it.

As for the US being impotent understand that we have the ability to do something but that really only creates more problems. The use of sanctions is the right move and if only the EU would do the same then it would start to really work. This tragedy might just get them off their butts to actually follow the US and impose stronger sanctions. We've had enough wars and the American People don't want another. This is the reason they voted for Obama. So this is the will of the people.

I am not suggesting to go at war with Russia which is basically suggest an apocalypses.
US has no need to do anything military.
It is more that enough to stop all trade with Russia and freeze all financial transaction of Russian state and crony corporations.
By no- fly zone I meant not military enforced restrictions but directing all commercial and passenger traffic across Easter Ukraine elsewhere.
This was not done as we failed again to correctly gather intelligence of who the rebels are and what are their capabilities.
CIA and NSA may actually have the intelligence but it was too explosive to get it out.

Again you are oversimplifying the situation. The US and EU still need Russian cooperation in trouble areas of the world that Russia has influence. Syria and Iran Sanctions are a couple of key concerns. Yes big business is in bed with Russia as well, which is problematic. The world economy is very intertwined and it's hard to make big countries do the right thing if they disregard normal civilized behavior. Putin knows that and it taking advantage of the situation, but to what end? He's not really making the EU or US more comfortable with him as a partner. This will drive more a wedge between the countries.

You can't blame the US for the Malaysian decision to take that route. Most countries airlines have avoided the area so it was their decision alone. Why you're choosing to lay some blame on the US is beyond me. This is really all on Putin. Why the hell would he give the Separatists such a powerful weapon? He should've been lowering the heat in the conflict and instead he's escalated it. The blame is solely on Putin in this affair.

Putin's to blame for annexing a people that identify as ethnic Russians, who wanted to be part of Russia?

He did it illegally. He can try and portray it as legitimate, but really he took Crimea for the Oil and Natural Gas off the Crimean Shore which belongs to Ukraine but if Russia annexes the area then they can exploit the oil.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea has totally upended Kiev’s plans for Black Sea and Sea of Azov offshore oil and natural gas production.

Before the peninsula’s March 16 independence referendum, followed two days later by Russian annexation, Ukraine’s state-owned Chornomornaftogaz (“Chernomorneftegaz” in Russian) owned 17 hydrocarbon fields, including 11 natural gas fields, four gas condensate fields, and two oil fields, along with 13 offshore platforms in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.
Among foreign companies interested in Crimea’s offshore hydrocarbon assets were ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Petrom.

Pre-annexation, Chornomornaftohaz also held a 100 percent interest in five offshore license blocs – Vostochno-Kazantipskoe in the Sea of Azov and Odesskoe, Bezymiannoe, Subbotina and Palasa in the Black Sea. Crimea was third in Ukrainian natural gas production after the Kharkov and Poltava regions.

And who gets to decide what is illegal or "legitimate"? The same countries that built their fortunes from doing the same thing without the indigenous people being able to vote on it? We occupied Iraq, a sovereign nation, under false pretenses just a year ago and we now get to **** on Putin for doing something far less egregious?

WTF man? 2 wrongs don't make a right. I hated the whole Iraq war farce. Russia is crippling Ukraine by taking Crimea and those resources. This is not even close to a legitimate act. If Ukraine had more military strength no way Putin does this. What was Putin's rationale for doing what they did? He just took advantage of the situation using turmoil that he created to provide some lame reason for doing what he did. He didn't have to annex Crimea in order to protect Russian people in that area who weren't in any danger to begin with.

Putin was just angry that his henchman President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed. Ukraine wants to get away from Putin's control. He can't stop them so he sends in his men to cause chaos.

The reality is that this is reality and how the world has operated since recorded human history. The "victors" of history get to write it, which gets filled with their sanctimonious bull****, as has been the case for our country. We can't change that but we can have a voice in what bull**** we get to spend our money on. And in my opinion, Russia can have Ukraine so long as my tax dollars are not splurged on some war of choice.

NardDogNation wrote:

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Silverfuel wrote:It's a shame that people are using this flight going down as an excuse to attack Obama but nixluva is the man in this thread.

I am not sure why nixluva and his opponents hijack the thread for Obamacare and Obama debate.
Obama administration together with Europeans allow Russia to do whatever they want, never insisted on creating no-fly zone above Esters Ukraine and now we see the consequences.
The tragedy is not only Russia and Ukraine responsibility but ours as well.
UN is just a bunch clowns capable on nothing and Europeans just a bunch of hypocrats.
US administration is nothing less of impotent and we as a nation don't give a damn about whats going on outside US.

You have to understand that The Obama Admin doesn't want an increased war zone in that area and if they get involved even deeper, it could inflame things.

You suggest a no fly zone without understanding how a "no fly zone" is enforced!!! You are being Naive. The US and EU don't control the skies over Russia or the boarder area with Ukraine. You have to use force to create a no fly zone and who would want to do that against Russia? More importantly the Russian separatists don't have aircraft so what are you hoping to accomplish with a no fly zone? The warnings about flying over that area were made to all countries and it was up to each to either heed the warning or ignore it.

As for the US being impotent understand that we have the ability to do something but that really only creates more problems. The use of sanctions is the right move and if only the EU would do the same then it would start to really work. This tragedy might just get them off their butts to actually follow the US and impose stronger sanctions. We've had enough wars and the American People don't want another. This is the reason they voted for Obama. So this is the will of the people.

I am not suggesting to go at war with Russia which is basically suggest an apocalypses.
US has no need to do anything military.
It is more that enough to stop all trade with Russia and freeze all financial transaction of Russian state and crony corporations.
By no- fly zone I meant not military enforced restrictions but directing all commercial and passenger traffic across Easter Ukraine elsewhere.
This was not done as we failed again to correctly gather intelligence of who the rebels are and what are their capabilities.
CIA and NSA may actually have the intelligence but it was too explosive to get it out.

Again you are oversimplifying the situation. The US and EU still need Russian cooperation in trouble areas of the world that Russia has influence. Syria and Iran Sanctions are a couple of key concerns. Yes big business is in bed with Russia as well, which is problematic. The world economy is very intertwined and it's hard to make big countries do the right thing if they disregard normal civilized behavior. Putin knows that and it taking advantage of the situation, but to what end? He's not really making the EU or US more comfortable with him as a partner. This will drive more a wedge between the countries.

You can't blame the US for the Malaysian decision to take that route. Most countries airlines have avoided the area so it was their decision alone. Why you're choosing to lay some blame on the US is beyond me. This is really all on Putin. Why the hell would he give the Separatists such a powerful weapon? He should've been lowering the heat in the conflict and instead he's escalated it. The blame is solely on Putin in this affair.

Putin's to blame for annexing a people that identify as ethnic Russians, who wanted to be part of Russia?

He did it illegally. He can try and portray it as legitimate, but really he took Crimea for the Oil and Natural Gas off the Crimean Shore which belongs to Ukraine but if Russia annexes the area then they can exploit the oil.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea has totally upended Kiev’s plans for Black Sea and Sea of Azov offshore oil and natural gas production.

Before the peninsula’s March 16 independence referendum, followed two days later by Russian annexation, Ukraine’s state-owned Chornomornaftogaz (“Chernomorneftegaz” in Russian) owned 17 hydrocarbon fields, including 11 natural gas fields, four gas condensate fields, and two oil fields, along with 13 offshore platforms in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.
Among foreign companies interested in Crimea’s offshore hydrocarbon assets were ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Petrom.

Pre-annexation, Chornomornaftohaz also held a 100 percent interest in five offshore license blocs – Vostochno-Kazantipskoe in the Sea of Azov and Odesskoe, Bezymiannoe, Subbotina and Palasa in the Black Sea. Crimea was third in Ukrainian natural gas production after the Kharkov and Poltava regions.

And who gets to decide what is illegal or "legitimate"? The same countries that built their fortunes from doing the same thing without the indigenous people being able to vote on it? We occupied Iraq, a sovereign nation, under false pretenses just a year ago and we now get to **** on Putin for doing something far less egregious?

WTF man? 2 wrongs don't make a right. I hated the whole Iraq war farce. Russia is crippling Ukraine by taking Crimea and those resources. This is not even close to a legitimate act. If Ukraine had more military strength no way Putin does this. What was Putin's rationale for doing what they did? He just took advantage of the situation using turmoil that he created to provide some lame reason for doing what he did. He didn't have to annex Crimea in order to protect Russian people in that area who weren't in any danger to begin with.

Putin was just angry that his henchman President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed. Ukraine wants to get away from Putin's control. He can't stop them so he sends in his men to cause chaos.

The reality is that this is reality and how the world has operated since recorded human history. The "victors" of history get to write it, which gets filled with their sanctimonious bull****, as has been the case for our country. We can't change that but we can have a voice in what bull**** we get to spend our money on. And in my opinion, Russia can have Ukraine so long as my tax dollars are not splurged on some war of choice.

IronWillGiroud wrote:Why cant we arrest putin and end this craziness

Better nuke him first, cover yourself in white, and slowly crawl in the direction of cemetery.

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:As for Obama, I genuinely believe he is a good man at heart. You don't splurge on a Harvard/Columbia education to work as a community organization in the projects without being one. The reality though is that nice guys finish last and that much has been reflected in his and his parties' policies. They'll talk a compelling game but at the end of the day, they have to capitulate to the same people that Republicans openly support. It's why most of the Reagan/Bush era financial policies have remained intact and why corporatism persists while all we can hang our hats on is the fact that 2% of the population can be gay married in a handful of states. If it's real change you're looking for, you're going to have to find a way to get money out of politics because as long as a political candidate has to raise a million/billion dollars just to get elected, he/she will always be indebted to the 1%.

Here's a link to a group that is trying to do just that and has been successful in getting 2 states (California and Vermont) to push a resolution through that will force Congress' hand. You should take a look and at least forward it to those who can help if you cannot:

http://www.wolf-pac.com/volunteer

I hear what you're saying and don't disagree about getting the money out of politics, but I do disagree with you about the work that Progressives who are in the Democratic party have been doing. A lot of Obama's money came from small donations for both of his campaigns.

President Obama is outpacing his record set four years ago for pulling in small donations, an analysis released Wednesday confirms.

Nearly half of the donors to Obama’s reelection campaign in 2011 gave $200 or less, more than double the proportion seen in 2007, according to the analysis from the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks money in politics.

Just 9 percent of donors to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, by contrast, came from the lowest end of the contribution scale, the study shows. Obama raised more money in aggregate from small donors — $56.7 million — than Romney raised overall.

This is why Obama has been able to do so many thing that directly impact lower income Americans. He's even done more on the Environment than most Presidents. If you think that the Repubs and Dems are equally beholden to the Big Money Donors then you really don't understand the Progressive movement. A lot of Obama's big money donors are Hollywood types who don't have the same concerns as the Koch Brothers or other big business owners who support the Repubs. It's why we have Obamacare as opposed to NOTHING. It's why we have the Consumer Protection Agency. What have the Repubs been doing? Trying to delay confirmation of the Director Richard Cordray so that the agency is crippled.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is commending the work of a consumer protection agency created after the economic crisis.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau got its first permanent director this week after the Senate voted to install Richard Cordray after years of delay.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama says consumers can go to the agency to "get some measure of justice" when financial institutions disregard the rules.

He says the bureau has addressed more than 175,000 complaints and has helped recover more than $400 million in refunds for consumers.

In the Republican message, Reps. Todd Young of Indiana and Tim Griffin of Arkansas are calling on the Democratic-controlled Senate to vote on bills passed by the House to delay requirements on individuals and businesses by Obama's health care law.

You can keep saying what you're trying to promote, but I know what the Progressive movement is trying to do in spite of Conservative obstruction. The 2 parties are not the same. At one time they were closer because you had more liberal Republicans and more Conservative Democrats, but now they are a world apart. You just don't see the Repubs supporting things like increasing the Minimum wage to a living wage or equal pay for women. They haven't supported investment in rebuilding this country. They've rejected all of Obama's proposals to get this country moving and rebuilt for the future.

My problem with both reps and dems - they want to solve the problems at the expense of middle class.
The only way to make life better for all Americans in sustainable fashion is to produce more wealth not redistribute what we have.
This never worked because it is idealistic nonsense which was leading to disasters over and over again.
You take million dollars from man who runs business and give to million people to by 99c Big Macs... So all you end up with is a lot of people with a heartburn.
We need to empower and force people to build their lives without any reliance on government help.
This how this country was build and was successful for so long.
We should stop throwing wealth on bailing out faulty corporations and institutions just because they are to big to fall.
We should stop supporting corrupt politicians just because this will look politically incorrect.

The Dems used to have the Green party movement, Ralph Nader and such... the tea party is now the dirty little non-homogenized weeds in the two party system that need to be killed. We will see if they succeed, or if the Tea can break the hold that these suits have on the republican party and save the country.

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:My problem with both reps and dems - they want to solve the problems at the expense of middle class.
The only way to make life better for all Americans in sustainable fashion is to produce more wealth not redistribute what we have.
This never worked because it is idealistic nonsense which was leading to disasters over and over again.
You take million dollars from man who runs business and give to million people to by 99c Big Macs... So all you end up with is a lot of people with a heartburn.

We need to empower and force people to build their lives without any reliance on government help.
This how this country was build and was successful for so long.
We should stop throwing wealth on bailing out faulty corporations and institutions just because they are to big to fall.
We should stop supporting corrupt politicians just because this will look politically incorrect.

I am completely in disagreement with you on this. Do you realize how much wealth this country has? It's not a lack of wealth that is the problem. it's the fact that the rich have control of the gov't and have rigged the system to suck all of the wealth in the country to themselves. Let me tell you what "redistribution" really means. It means paying people a living wage rather than trying to keep salaries low or sending jobs overseas. A company like Walmart makes so much profit and yet their employees are on gov't assistance due to the low salaries they pay. Basically Walmart gets rich off the backs of the American Tax Payer who is supporting their low wage employees. Corporate America has been waging this war for 50 years. They've won the war so far by reducing Union Jobs and manufacturing in this country. Thus they have kept salaries low as they've NEVER been more profitable.

In case you need more confirmation that the US economy is out of balance, here are three charts for you.

1) Corporate profit margins just hit another all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't. What they're suffering from is a myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation).

2) Wages as a percent of the economy just hit another all-time low. Why are corporate profits so high? One reason is that companies are paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are represent spending power for consumers. And consumer spending is "revenue" for other companies. So the profit obsession is actually starving the rest of the economy of revenue growth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4#ixzz387iSJExV

You say we should empower people to build their lives without realiance on Gov't help, well one way is to stop Corporations from being able to rip employees off by not paying a living wage. Wages have flatlined for decades but inflation hasn't remained stagnant. Gas prices, food prices, rent etc. have gone up, but not people's salaries. This has been a deliberate plan by the Big Business entities who squeeze the workforce to gain more and more profit. People who make a living wage or more don't need Gov't assistance so that is the main source of the problem. These corporations have the money to pay a decent salary, but they CHOOSE not to. This is why Obama has been trying to raise the minimum wage. He did so for Gov't Contractors but the Repubs are blocking him from doing it for the entire country.

So how you specifically want to redistribute the wealth?
Except of direct expropriation like it was done in Russia, China, Cuba, etc. you can use high taxes to take the profits from wealthy 1% and give it to pure as entitlements.
Minimum wage increase included.
This was tried on multiple occasions and in many countries with only one result. Stagnation, recession, capital and production run to other countries with smaller taxes.
The very people who should get the redistributed wealth getting unemployed and hooked on subsidies. Inflation was eating even this support making pure into dammed.

It will be great to hear if you have some other solution.

I believe that the only way to improve the life of all people is to force more investments into science, technology, education, and public infrastructure by making this investment profitable for wealthy people. This will provide over time much more resources to help pure and underprivileged as more income and profit taxes will be collected.
We had this situation with surplus in late 90th early 2000. And it came from tech expansion and millions of educated professional who came to work in this country.
We should not simply raise min wages for ****ty unproductive jobs but provide better jobs for the people. Encourage them to work, get education and professional training.
Entitlements are two-sided sword. They help but they corrupt.
Society must help orphans, elderly, disabled. But the rest of the society must find their own ways to make a living.

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:My problem with both reps and dems - they want to solve the problems at the expense of middle class.
The only way to make life better for all Americans in sustainable fashion is to produce more wealth not redistribute what we have.
This never worked because it is idealistic nonsense which was leading to disasters over and over again.
You take million dollars from man who runs business and give to million people to by 99c Big Macs... So all you end up with is a lot of people with a heartburn.

We need to empower and force people to build their lives without any reliance on government help.
This how this country was build and was successful for so long.
We should stop throwing wealth on bailing out faulty corporations and institutions just because they are to big to fall.
We should stop supporting corrupt politicians just because this will look politically incorrect.

I am completely in disagreement with you on this. Do you realize how much wealth this country has? It's not a lack of wealth that is the problem. it's the fact that the rich have control of the gov't and have rigged the system to suck all of the wealth in the country to themselves. Let me tell you what "redistribution" really means. It means paying people a living wage rather than trying to keep salaries low or sending jobs overseas. A company like Walmart makes so much profit and yet their employees are on gov't assistance due to the low salaries they pay. Basically Walmart gets rich off the backs of the American Tax Payer who is supporting their low wage employees. Corporate America has been waging this war for 50 years. They've won the war so far by reducing Union Jobs and manufacturing in this country. Thus they have kept salaries low as they've NEVER been more profitable.

In case you need more confirmation that the US economy is out of balance, here are three charts for you.

1) Corporate profit margins just hit another all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't. What they're suffering from is a myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation).

2) Wages as a percent of the economy just hit another all-time low. Why are corporate profits so high? One reason is that companies are paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are represent spending power for consumers. And consumer spending is "revenue" for other companies. So the profit obsession is actually starving the rest of the economy of revenue growth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4#ixzz387iSJExV

You say we should empower people to build their lives without realiance on Gov't help, well one way is to stop Corporations from being able to rip employees off by not paying a living wage. Wages have flatlined for decades but inflation hasn't remained stagnant. Gas prices, food prices, rent etc. have gone up, but not people's salaries. This has been a deliberate plan by the Big Business entities who squeeze the workforce to gain more and more profit. People who make a living wage or more don't need Gov't assistance so that is the main source of the problem. These corporations have the money to pay a decent salary, but they CHOOSE not to. This is why Obama has been trying to raise the minimum wage. He did so for Gov't Contractors but the Repubs are blocking him from doing it for the entire country.

So how you specifically want to redistribute the wealth?
Except of direct expropriation like it was done in Russia, China, Cuba, etc. you can use high taxes to take the profits from wealthy 1% and give it to pure as entitlements.
Minimum wage increase included.
This was tried on multiple occasions and in many countries with only one result. Stagnation, recession, capital and production run to other countries with smaller taxes.
The very people who should get the redistributed wealth getting unemployed and hooked on subsidies. Inflation was eating even this support making pure into dammed.

It will be great to hear if you have some other solution.

I believe that the only way to improve the life of all people is to force more investments into science, technology, education, and public infrastructure by making this investment profitable for wealthy people. This will provide over time much more resources to help pure and underprivileged as more income and profit taxes will be collected.
We had this situation with surplus in late 90th early 2000. And it came from tech expansion and millions of educated professional who came to work in this country.
We should not simply raise min wages for ****ty unproductive jobs but provide better jobs for the people. Encourage them to work, get education and professional training.
Entitlements are two-sided sword. They help but they corrupt.
Society must help orphans, elderly, disabled. But the rest of the society must find their own ways to make a living.

What you are suggesting is EXACTLY what Obama and the Progressives are trying to do. It's not about just giving people money in gov't hand outs. Obama has been trying to get the Conservatives to invest in this country since he took office. Do you even pay attention to what Obama and the Progressive Movement is doing? This doesn't mean that we shouldn't make big business and the rich pay their fair share into the system so this country can invest in Education, Rebuilding the Infrastructure of the country, Research and development for new tech. This is what Obama ran on and has been trying to do!!!

As for not raising the Minimum wage you are completely ignorant of why that should be done. Right now the average low wage worker is not making a living wage but the companies that employ the vast majority of those workers have been raking in the profits on the backs of the average tax payer who pays for the Gov't assistance low wage workers rely on to survive. Those big businesses can afford to pay more they choose to horde profits by underpaying the workers. You just don't get that there will always be lower skilled workers. That doesn't mean they should be pissed on.

Big-box stores make billions from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, aka food stamps. What’s more, the wages of many workers at these stores are so low that the workers themselves qualify for food stamps—which the employees then often spend at those big-box stores.

Wal-Mart said last week that it would halt plans to open stores in D.C. because of a minimum-wage hike that would mandate a minimum hourly pay of $12.50.
Executives said the pay increase would drive up prices for consumers.

So how much would a higher minimum wage cost shoppers at Walmart?

About 46 cents per trip, reports Caroline Fairchild at The Huffington Post.

That figure is based on a 2011 study by CUNY's Stephanie Luce and University of California Berkeley's Ken Jacobs and Dave Graham-Squire.

"Even if Wal-Mart decided to pass 100 percent of the cost on to customers, store prices would still only increase by 1.1%," Fairchild writes.

Because the average customer spends $1,200 per year, that would amount to about $12 annually.

A Wal-Mart spokesperson said that anyone who thought price increases would be small had "limited understanding of how a business operates."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-walmart-wage-hike-would-cost-you-2013-7#ixzz3896g1heA

All dems are proposing is to tax the rich and dump the money in bottomless extremely inefficient government controlled projects.
What I am talking about is to provide incentives for reach people and corporations to invest in this areas.
As per minimum wage increase this is exactly what it will do. Corporations and small business will hire less workers, fire some excess, and do more automation. So the result will be more unemployed people with no skills and experience to do the jobs which are available. We will be better off to spend money not on min wage increase bit on workers training and educations to make them do better paid work.

gunsnewing wrote:I voted for Obama too. But I've come to realize everyone sucks. Humans suck. Especially Melo

Humans are like vacuum cleaners. Melo is like the Dyson Animal.