Ann Coulter says welfare policies responsible for looting....

[fordy]

badgenome said:

fordy said:

You honestly don't think any of the 10% unemployed would step up and say they'd be willing to work for the same amount minus the payroll tax reimbursement? A lot of people ARE living for here and now, mainly because they only have the means to do that. Very few have more than $1000 in savings. They're doing it tough. The jobs aren't around, and this whole capital gains tax cut crap has proven that it's not from a lack of investment, but a lack of people able to buy shit!

See, now youre grouping two things together. Just because I'm standing up for social security doesn't mean I want it to be inefficient. Government services can be up for independent audit just like private business, so don't go lumping those together, please.

I find your confidence in the American voting system interesting. So why aren't they for the little man? Could it be the allowance of undisclosed vast amounts of donations able to buy out your politicians, effectively turning your system into a Plutocratic Oligarchy? It would be interesting to see which party would be the first to veto a proposal to limit or eliminate private donations to political parties altogether.

But at least the government is up for scrutiny via frequent election. If you guys decide to vote someone corrupt in well, not anyone's fault but yourselves. When corporations get big enough, they REQUIRE the government to step in in order to stop it. Need I remind you of the monopoly of Standard Oil? Now, which side of politics would be against government intervention again?

Perhaps you require something more....recent? Take the Australian election of 2007. The conservative party just introduced a work relations reform bill called WorkChoices, promising "we've given the businesses more say in wage negotiations, but we assure you that they wont go too far". Guess what? As soon as the act passed into law, the media was reporting SIGNIFICANT wage cuts, with threats to legally dismiss employers unfairly. Now, you could say that it was the government's fault for relaxing regulations, but that govrnment got its ASS KICKED in the 2007 election. Even the Prime Minister lost his electorate, the first to happen since the 1910s. The subsequent government tore WorkChoices up. So from this example, are you seriously going to stand up and say business can be trusted over government? Give business an inch and they'll take a mile. Give government an inch, and if they take a mile, they'll be out.

I just don't see why it would significantly change the market. Instead of just assuming that all employers are Dickensian villains, put yourself in their shoes and think logically: if you have a reliable employee, are you really going to replace them with someone new and unproven just because you can pay them a few bucks less a month? Of course not. And strictly from a standpoint of cost, if you have invested anything at all in training your employees, it wouldn't even be close to worth it.

So you only spend a few bucks a month on social security? And you're seriously wondering why it's going dry? For gods sake, add a bit more to your retirement, you tightwads!

Need I remind you of Microsoft? When they were simply giving away software (oh, what a crime), they were villainized beyond belief as some kind of evil monopoly. Now that they just hire lobbyists like everyone else, no one really gives a fuck about them. I assume you think it's Republicans who are in the pockets of big business, but why is it Democrats who receive the most money? In particular that shining white knight Barack Obama, who is planning to raise $1 billion for his reelection: that money isn't going to all come from small donors, especially not in this economy. Big business is totally cool with big government, because they can generally nudge regulations in the direction that they want, and who really cares when you have a department of compliance bigger than most other companies? The only people who find regulations truly limiting are small businesses.

I'd like a source on this, please. If I recall, there was a ton of campaign money thrown around for the Republican pre-elections, particularly on Gingrich. So what's your logic? The corporations are funding the Democrats? I thought the Democrats were for tighter regulation. I think we're mixing up regulation with subsidies. Regulation should be there so corporations don't go poisoning us all, or reclessly killing expendable workers in a mine somewhere. Subsidies should only be used to transition to better technologies smoothly, not to pay existing monopolies.

So if it's in terms f regulation vs subsidies, why are the Republicans against closing tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Why are they against ending oil subsidies?

By the way, it's not as if this stuff is undisclosed like you suggest. It has to be disclosed, but... what does that mean? It's not like the media does a great job informing people, even when it doesn't have an agenda. So the information is out there, but unless you dig it up yourself or the media decides to slap you in the face with it, you'll probably never know about it. It's transparency without transparency.

The edia doesn't seem to be into it's job anymore. They're supposed to keep the bastards honest, but most times when I watch interviews with american politicians, it seems more like an afternoon chat over a cup of tea and piece of cake. Nobody is calling anyone on their bullshit anymore.

Again, I submit that the only way to really deal with the problem is to devolve power back to the states. Why should someone who lives on the ass end of the country have to follow all the ins and outs of some shitty little city on the eastern seaboard just to be able to make an informed decision when he goes to vote? Hooray for Australia and all that, but 310 million wildly diverse people cannot fucking be centrally governed.

That sounds more like urban vs regional to me. I'm not sure about many states there, but our states consist usually of one MASSIVE city, and a bunch of smaller towns. the states should have some power yes, and federal should have power over things the country holds dear. But idealistically, I'd say first thing would be to work towards decentralisation for each state, then look at holding state vs federal debate.