Conn. murder trial...

[Dragonzbane76]

2 bullets in the head would be a lot cheaper.....


http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/05/chesire.connecticut.murders/index.html?hpt=T2

[BJJ-Blue]

2 bullets in the head would be a lot cheaper.....

I'm no longer pro-death penalty, but for those who support it these guys are the poster children for it. If these guys don't get it, I'd love to ask that jury under what circumstances they think it is the appropriate punishment.

[MasterKiller]

I'm pro-death penalty. These guys forfeited any rights to life, imo.

[Dragonzbane76]

give the father a gun put them on there knee's, give him 4 shots. Save the tax payers some money, and would give the father the justice he probably wants.

[BJJ-Blue]

I'm pro-death penalty. These guys forfeited any rights to life, imo.

I used to be. And to be honest I'd never convict a man for killing someone who killed a family member of his, or molested his kids, or other similar crimes.

I'm only against it because I've seen innocent men in my own city sent to Death Row who were later exonerated through DNA. But it is a tough issue for me. As a human being I feel those two animals in this case should be hanged, but I just can't support the ultimate penalty when it's repeatedly been abused by so many corrupt police departments and DAs just looking to clear the books.

How that husband/father in this case goes on day to day is beyond me. I feel so sorry for that man.

[David Jamieson]

these stories serve one purpose.

to rile you up.

crime is extant because people are of low ethics and morals and there is exactly nothing being done to employ people and give people the opportunity to pursue life liberty and happiness and so instead they choose drug addiction and crime.

this is a story that while tragic is told every day.

it is told to make you feel distrust and fear and to not bother with caring about others after you build up enough resistance to caring.

don't believe it? stay tuned.

[Kansuke]

OH? So if these worthless animals had been 'given' better jobs they would have spared society and this family their evil actions? That is just ****ing offensive as hell.

[Drake]

I'm pro death penalty, BUT, I don't think a revenge style execution would serve any good whatsoever.

And really? People commit crime because they aren't employed" SERIOUSLY? Did you REALLY go there? I know, I know, name calling isn't permitted here...but you really are a moron.

[David Jamieson]

I'm pro death penalty, BUT, I don't think a revenge style execution would serve any good whatsoever.

And really? People commit crime because they aren't employed" SERIOUSLY? Did you REALLY go there? I know, I know, name calling isn't permitted here...but you really are a moron.

you have a very insular view of the world.

why do people steal? because they want and don't got. Would that be a more simple way of putting it for you?

I'm telling you outright that as you see more wealth failure in the states, less jobs and a growing population of disenchanted folks, you will see more crime.

anyway, if your only skill is calling people names, that's not much skill at all is it? :)

[BJJ-Blue]

why do people steal? because they want and don't got. Would that be a more simple way of putting it for you?

I guess you never heard of Bernie Madoff. :rolleyes:

[Drake]

Or Ward Churchill.

[Drake]

Or the officers in my Army who were busted for stealing tens of thousands of dollars of reconstruction money. Officers aren't exactly hurting for $$.

[BJJ-Blue]

or ward churchill.

lmfao!!!!!

[Drake]

And believe or not, a lot of people steal not because they "aren't employed" (as if businesses are obligated to hire unqualified people to sink their business). They do it because it's the lazy, get rich quick answer. I grew up around thieves. I know. It's greed and laziness.

[BJJ-Blue]

And believe or not, a lot of people steal not because they "aren't employed" (as if businesses are obligated to hire unqualified people to sink their business). They do it because it's the lazy, get rich quick answer. I grew up around thieves. I know. It's greed and laziness.

And some people are just kleptos. I went to school with a guy who wore designer clothes, wore alot of jewelry, etc. And he stole anything that wasn't bolted down.

I rememeber when Winona Ryder was busted for shoplifting, and we know she wasn't hurting for money.

[David Jamieson]

yep, people of all kinds steal.

tell me what the demographic breakdown is of convicted felons.

I can pretty much guarantee you that big time crooks like maddoff are a remarkably tiny little fraction of a percentage point while those with chronic socio-econbomic disadvantages are fiulling your private prison systems to the max.

so, instead of using outliers as you like to do, why not start dealing with actual facts instead?

your arguments otherwise are null and void for the most part.

[BJJ-Blue]

yep, people of all kinds steal.

That's not what you said in your last post. :rolleyes:

[solo1]

im pro death penalty. i dont buy into the tripe that killing someone makes society no better then the killer. I think it is necessary for a just society to rid itself of killers. I dont know if the death penalty is a deterrant and I dont think it even matters. We have a right to rid ourselves of people that do heinous things and an obligation to the victims.

[KC Elbows]

BJJ-Blue and I are in full agreement. If one can't trust government with their money, they can less trust them with their lives.

The death penalty means innocent people WILL be executed, and often, in societies, means those with the power to do so will use that power for their own benefit.

[Kansuke]

why do people steal? because they want and don't got.



So the answer is to take everything from those who have and give to those who don't until they are appeased? That will make everyone safe and end crime? What a load of liberal, illogical bull****.

[KC Elbows]

Any society can punish its transgressors.

Any society that allows the children of transgressors to fall through the cracks and does not put resources to educating them will pay for it.

Any society that allows resources to fall into one group, and allows an inheritance structure that makes it hereditary, will pay for it.

Traditional Chinese structures of inheritance had advantages in this sense.

[Kansuke]

Any society that allows resources to fall into one group, and allows an inheritance structure that makes it hereditary, will pay for it.



Bull ****. That is pure socialist nonsense. Poking holes in the boats that actually work well does not make anyone drier.

[SoCo KungFu]

So being broke caused them to rape a woman, a 17 and an 11 year old girl? Caused them to strangle them and burn them in their home? You know there are lots of animals on the planet that kill off their defective members. Pro-death penalty is perfectly natural...

[Drake]

So being broke caused them to rape a woman, a 17 and an 11 year old girl? Caused them to strangle them and burn them in their home? You know there are lots of animals on the planet that kill off their defective members. Pro-death penalty is perfectly natural...

If we gave them jobs, this never would have happened... :rolleyes:

[KC Elbows]

Bull ****. That is pure socialist nonsense. Poking holes in the boats that actually work well does not make anyone drier.

Free rides to non-producers and inheritance are not mutually exclusive practices. The Chinese model gives a good example of this playing out. Inheritance was split pretty well evenly between all sons. One would assume, if profitable lines tended to stay that way, that those sons would tend to mostly profit, but the reality was, in traditional China, because of the inheritance structure, that who the wealthy families were changed quite often, with families falling from rich to poverty being a common story. Your "boats that work well" is a story, families naturally rise and fall under systems that don't reward them for nothing more than having a parent with money despite their offspring not necessarily being capable of achieving the same without inheritance. It's just privatized welfare.:D

[BJJ-Blue]

This may sound like a novel concept, but why not let the person who actually earned the money decide who gets it when he dies?

[KC Elbows]

This may sound like a novel concept, but why not let the person who actually earned the money decide who gets it when he dies?

I could be mistaken on this, but I don't know that the Chinese model was based on legality as much as what would be viewed as a socially (and thus, in the Confucian sense, morally) inappropriate act. If one left the family resources to only one offspring, it's tantamount to saying that one failed in fatherhood except in one instance, and to punish the remaining sons for the father's own failure would just be failing again. The higher responsibility was always toward fulfilling one's role as parent, not toward a family legacy based on any lesser criteria. To do the appropriate act was more important toward legacy in traditional China.

Now, in state Confucianism, it might have been a legal fact, I don't know for certain. But in people's personal approach to it, there was a strong social factor.

It is the longest lasting socially conservative society in existence. It could rightly claim that any could rise or fall in it, with some caveats. The society itself supported the ability to rise and to fall. Even communism was forced to adapt it in much the same way that Genghis Khan, the Manchurians, et al did. And the logic is not easy to answer: to choose one chiild for an inheritance based on others failing a criterion is to buck one's own responsibility as parent, regardless of whether one is from the East or West.

So, one can choose, as you suggest, but one is open to criticism based on their choice, and only someone who was a poor parent would not balk at making a failure in that case and then punishing the recipient of one's failure for it.

[BJJ-Blue]

Thanks for the explanation KC.

I will say I don't look at someone choosing to leave out a child or leaving it all to one child as tantamount to the parent failing. Look at the Bulger family, for instance. One son ended up becoming the dean of a university while another son was on America's Most Wanted and the FBI's Most Wanted List.

[KC Elbows]

Thanks for the explanation KC.

I will say I don't look at someone choosing to leave out a child or leaving it all to one child as tantamount to the parent failing. Look at the Bulger family, for instance. One son ended up becoming the dean of a university while another son was on America's Most Wanted and the FBI's Most Wanted List.

No problem, mostly just enjoy discussion odd tangents, so that would describe this.

In the system I'm talking about, I don't think one would be expected to leave inheritance to a killer or warlord, if one son chose those things.

BUT, to leave more to one child because they were good with money would be frowned upon. Even though it is common enough in the West, on the assumption that that one child will help the others, it creates a rich class of essentially welfare babies feeding off the more fiscally able among them, when the system would run better if those welfare babies posing as trust funders were allowed to fail, because it is all family, they are far more often subsidized in their incompetence or excess, and far less likely to assume their rightful role in heirarchy of wealth as poor people.

You really can't have a society that allows the individual to rise to their rightful place without also allowing for falls, and inheritance appears to play a role in either supporting this or preventing it, depending on which method one looks at.

[Drake]

We had a 72 year old woman robbed in Pueblo the other day. At her own doorstep. Thief took her rent for the month, and she had no other means of paying it. She had already lost three children, and her fourth was dying of brain cancer. Yet we would support the thief due to a presumed lack of opportunity?

At what point, DJ, would you say that they should be punished for their cruelty to others? At what point would you say that regardless that they are exploiting those, who, despite being equally hard pressed to pay their own way, have no other options?

I beg to differ. There is always work. But why would someone work for minimum wage when they can just knock down an old lady and take her rent money? Your argument is flawed, because we are all given the same opportunity to succeed. Bill Gates wasn't always rich, and neither was Steve Jobs. A lot of millionaires started with nothing.
I grew up in a home that couldn't afford to pay the utilities and relied on welfare and charity for food. I now make around $70k a year and am working on my doctorate. I may be making close to 100k+ a year once I get out. I COULD HAVE become a thief, and many I grew up with did. That was a CHOICE I made, and it was a CHOICE they made. Nobody owed me a job. It's the responsibility of the individual to make themselves marketable, and with a massive amount of federal, state, and independent financial aid out there, as well as flexible colleges and trade schools. there is no excuse.

You are taking a lazy approach, DJ. You want to blame the system, because nobody wants to blame themselves. You want to excuse criminal behavior, which hurts and damages our way of life, because these people are owed something? They ARE owed something. They are owed an equal chance to be successful. Just because they (expletived)ed it up isn't my problem. They can either try to fix themselves, or they can go to jail. Again, another CHOICE.

[KC Elbows]

we are all given the same opportunity to succeed. Bill Gates wasn't always rich, and neither was Steve Jobs. A lot of millionaires started with nothing.


The first assertion is not hard fact. I agree with the spirit of what you are saying(we are responsible for our own moral life), but the idea that we are all given the same opportunity financially is an unrealized ideal, not a point of fact backed by any solid data.

I'd also assert that some cultures conflate financial and fiscal issues, so that there is no chance of respect left to the poor, or the poor from certain demographics. That some manage to rise above this will always be true, but the ones who fail miserably in the face of the temptations facing them are not, by virtue of facing more daunting temptations and more dire alternatives, worse than those who do not earn what their society handed to them, and thus never faced the same alternatives, by point of fact dodging them entirely, even if we are harsher to the mugger than to someone stealing the pensions of thousands.

[Drake]

The first assertion is not hard fact. I agree with the spirit of what you are saying(we are responsible for our own moral life), but the idea that we are all given the same opportunity financially is an unrealized ideal, not a point of fact backed by any solid data.

If the poorest person in the country can become a millionaire based on his/her creativity and enterpreneurship, and the richest ones can suddenly find themselves penniless due to poor leadership, then how unfair is it?

I'd have to agree with BJJ on the idea of corporate bailouts, as it does show a bit of socialism's flaws (Funny how Bush pushed this one the most). These companies were irresponsible, and should have ben allowed to collapse. There's plenty of smart, able people ready to put in their ideas and company ideas to replace them. Instead we are keeping inept leaders and inefficent companies afloat, similar to what brought down the USSR. We haven't seen a major car manufacturer pop up in ages, because we protect the "Big 3", no matter how poorly they perform.

[KC Elbows]

If the poorest person in the country can become a millionaire based on his/her creativity and enterpreneurship, and the richest ones can suddenly find themselves penniless due to poor leadership, then how unfair is it?

Neither really happens except in the most exceptional cases. Mostly, it's not what occurs. As I stated, movement down from the wealthy class was far more common under a different model of inheritance, and in the U.S. those who become uber wealthy are almost never that poor to start with, and those who fall from wealth almost never fall to poverty, whether they belong there or not.


I'd have to agree with BJJ on the idea of corporate bailouts, as it does show a bit of socialism's flaws (Funny how Bush pushed this one the most). These companies were irresponsible, and should have ben allowed to collapse. There's plenty of smart, able people ready to put in their ideas and company ideas to replace them. Instead we are keeping inept leaders and inefficent companies afloat, similar to what brought down the USSR. We haven't seen a major car manufacturer pop up in ages, because we protect the "Big 3", no matter how poorly they perform.

Agreed. My point is that, in both wealthy families and their corporate ties, falling is prevented not by ability, but by a type of welfare that rewards incompetence. We're largely on the same page.

[BJJ-Blue]

I'd have to agree with BJJ on the idea of corporate bailouts, as it does show a bit of socialism's flaws (Funny how Bush pushed this one the most). These companies were irresponsible, and should have ben allowed to collapse. There's plenty of smart, able people ready to put in their ideas and company ideas to replace them.

First off, your Post #30 was excellent.

Agreed. And in the situation we are in it would actually be Ford that would be ready to pick up the slack had GM been allowed to follow their path to bankruptcy. And if Ford could not keep up with demand, another company would have formed that would have. That's how capitalism works. When there is a demand, someone will always find a way to supply said demand and thus profit. If you forcibly take away the rewards from those individuals who take the risks involved in starting companies to fill demand, you end up with shortages. There is a reason people in communist countries are on food rations, wait in long lines, and are on waiting lists for major purchaces (cars, appliances, etc). And thats if they even have the products available. Notice you would be hard pressed to find any Cubans driving cars made since the 1960s.

[BJJ-Blue]

Neither really happens except in the most exceptional cases. Mostly, it's not what occurs.

So the solution is to let liberals/socialists take away that opportunity for all of us?

[KC Elbows]

So the solution is to let liberals/socialists take away that opportunity for all of us?

Confucian ethics predates socialism.

People acting as a society are the only solution worth pursuing. Economic and political theories are mostly rationales for what people want to do anyway. If the children of the poor lack opportunity by our acts, we are not in a society with them. If the idle rich take what they don't deserve, they are not in a society with us. If welfare queens rob the system, same deal. If we only resort to punishment as an answer, when there is no clear social contract between the myriad groups, it's NOT about a society with any clear rationale, but one group punishing another for its own benefit, by design or effect.

Billionaires who try to help and don't try to make their families de facto royals and poor families who maintain their honor and live good lives nonetheless are a worthier society to choose than rapacious money barons, welfare queens, and succesful conmen, yet the latter tend to have the greater representation with our politicians, mostly electioneers, well represented by the GOP, repeatedly running on small government and legislating on its opposite, saving failed firms and blaming everyone else for a lack of free trade, and the dems, running on opportunity for all but feeding their own moneyed interests and maintaining free rides for their voting blocks.

I tend to think that people admire those who truly help, and are shamed when they fail to do as much. If we don't look out for more than our own families in some way, we're not making much of a statement about what we feel about each other as countrymen. Trusting banks and political parties and businesses to represent that without shaming them for failing to do so goes nowhere, yet, with the two party system, we, by default, are stuck saying "Okay, last time you didn't represent my concerns with economics/graft/conservatism/general welfare, but now the other party is being just as bad and you're saying you've changed, I'll have to trust you, *******." Too many forget the importance of the last word.

/rant

[Drake]

Then what is the incentive to work hard if they have to give it away to those too lazy to help themselves?

Say I grew up poor, but through my intellect and progressive thinking, create a widget that is better than other widgets? Say this makes me a ton of money, but now I have to redistribute this to everyone else? Where is the incentive to make better widgets, since I have to give away the profits of my hard work? Why not just be a bottom feeder, since I'll make the same amount of money anyway? This has been historically proven to kill economies.

[KC Elbows]

Then what is the incentive to work hard if they have to give it away to those too lazy to help themselves?

Say I grew up poor, but through my intellect and progressive thinking, create a widget that is better than other widgets? Say this makes me a ton of money, but now I have to redistribute this to everyone else? Where is the incentive to make better widgets, since I have to give away the profits of my hard work? Why not just be a bottom feeder, since I'll make the same amount of money anyway? This has been historically proven to kill economies.

I'm not arguing for wholesale redistribution. I'm arguing that you can't really call yourself a member of a society that you contribute only the bare minimum you can to, and complain bitterly about even that bare minimum. Having a job is personal responsibility, not at all about responsibility to society. Aiding one's community when that aid is surplus or luxury to the community isn't real charity either. Stone buildings for schools is often more about legacy than that those schools need such an ostentatious building. If we do little of real value for anyone but ourselves and those we are hardwired to love, we are bad examples, especially if we consider that most of us lived through the best economic times our country ever saw. If we teach our families to do the same, we're worse examples.

Having a job is hardly sufficient to pay back society for what we have. IF I accept that it is each person's right to contribute how they like, THEN I also accept that, when one of us fails to contribute, or tries to turn so-called contributions that really are for our temporary profit, into something we call contributions, then the term disgrace can and should apply to our conduct, not success. We are not successes by making money for ourselves; no moral code, religion, or school of thought has EVER proposed a convincing argument that we are.

From that, I'm saying that the idea that we do our live's work only for the right pay is economically smart and morally empty, and often at odds with reality. We do a lot more based on our understanding of what our society is, we want that society, more than we want almost anything else in life, unless our society is a lousy one or our morals questionable.

This has very little to do with socialism.

[Kansuke]

If the poorest person in the country can become a millionaire based on his/her creativity and enterpreneurship, and the richest ones can suddenly find themselves penniless due to poor leadership, then how unfair is it?

I'd have to agree with BJJ on the idea of corporate bailouts, as it does show a bit of socialism's flaws (Funny how Bush pushed this one the most). These companies were irresponsible, and should have ben allowed to collapse. There's plenty of smart, able people ready to put in their ideas and company ideas to replace them. Instead we are keeping inept leaders and inefficent companies afloat, similar to what brought down the USSR. We haven't seen a major car manufacturer pop up in ages, because we protect the "Big 3", no matter how poorly they perform.


Good points, well said.

[BJJ-Blue]

People acting as a society are the only solution worth pursuing.

Tell that to the Founding Fathers. They set this country up so it was up to the INDIVIDUAL how he lived his life.

And their blueprint allowed this country to become the most free, and the most rich country on the planet, and all in under 200 years. Why you dump on proven success is beyond me.


If the idle rich take what they don't deserve, they are not in a society with us.

As long as the money/assets are not stolen form someone else, they are 100% deserved. As much I despise the Kennedys and other trust fund kids, it's their family's money and no one should be telling them how they can use it and/or that they don't deserve it.


If we only resort to punishment as an answer, when there is no clear social contract between the myriad groups, it's NOT about a society with any clear rationale, but one group punishing another for its own benefit, by design or effect.

But punishing the rich is the answer?

I've said it beofre and I'll say it again: You liberals go ahead and soak the rich and expect utopia. But what you fail to understand is that the rich are the job producers in this country.

[MightyB]

We should all have to read this before we graduate high school:
http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Defense-Sanford/dp/0671535110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286566697&sr=8-1

The system is fubared. These guys had priors and had no right to be on the street in the first place. This type of crime is becoming the norm and is par for the course.

Men break in, isolate the largest male, use the love of children as a weapon, children and women help to subdue the largest male all the while believing the killers because they're saying "do this and we won't hurt you" and for some reason we're conditioned to go along because we want to believe these killers won't hurt us if we just go along with them... anyway - they isolate and bind the male. Then they go sadistic on the male often beating them to death. They bind the females to the beds, they rape and torture them. They then know they can't leave witnesses, so they kill them and burn them (they're recidivists and the next time they go to jail might be longer than the last time they went). It's a tired story and it's played out surprisingly often.

Do yourselves a favor. Read "Strong on Survival". Buy a gun. And, if you have the opportunity to kill one of these b@st@rds - do it without remorse. If you don't, and even if they get caught... because of our lenient system - they're going to get out and do it again.

[KC Elbows]

Tell that to the Founding Fathers. They set this country up so it was up to the INDIVIDUAL how he lived his life.

And rightfully so. This has no bearing on the right of others to judge him based on how he chose to live his life.


And their blueprint allowed this country to become the most free, and the most rich country on the planet, and all in under 200 years. Why you dump on proven success is beyond me.

I'm not dumping on the system they set up. I'm proposing that someone who gives nothing be back is dead weight and worse, a conclusion their system does not preclude.


As long as the money/assets are not stolen form someone else, they are 100% deserved. As much I despise the Kennedys and other trust fund kids, it's their family's money and no one should be telling them how they can use it and/or that they don't deserve it.

And everyone has the right to judge them for it. There's a reason that Bill Gates is currently one of the most respected rich people around, and it has to do with his philanthropy, not simply his riches. And there's a reason that a number of other billionaires are NOT respected by their societies.


But punishing the rich is the answer?

If contributing to your society is punishment, then that's a pretty clear statement about what one thinks about their society.


I've said it beofre and I'll say it again: You liberals go ahead and soak the rich and expect utopia. But what you fail to understand is that the rich are the job producers in this country.

I'm speaking of value judgements and concepts of society, not social programs. Social programs are only necessary if enough of those who benefit from their society do not give back of their own volition.

[BJJ-Blue]

Then what is the incentive to work hard if they have to give it away to those too lazy to help themselves?

Say I grew up poor, but through my intellect and progressive thinking, create a widget that is better than other widgets? Say this makes me a ton of money, but now I have to redistribute this to everyone else? Where is the incentive to make better widgets, since I have to give away the profits of my hard work? Why not just be a bottom feeder, since I'll make the same amount of money anyway? This has been historically proven to kill economies.

I also agree, and I'll go one further.

This is why I absolutely detest Barack Obama. Obama was born a minority, his father was not a US citizen, and his parents divorced when he was very young. His father was mostly absent from his life. Despite these strikes against him (and I myself do not call being a minority a strike, liberals do), Mr Obama went to college, earned a law degree, and became President of the Harvard Law Review. So despite starting out with these disadvantages, he achieved ALOT more than the 'average' American in terms of education and income level. And that's not even counting the fact he became a Senator and the Predident of the United States.

So how does Obama view this country? Does he look at this country as the great country where a man born in his situation overcame the odds and through hard work was able to achieve success even his own parents couldn't have dreamed of? No, he bashes this country as a land where only the rich, or the priveleged, etc can be successful. So that tells me that either he is worst kind of selfish, one who succeeded under a certain ruleset and now wants to change those rules, or he is the ultimate in arrogance, one who says HE can make it, but us stupid serfs can't make it without someone like him changing the rules to 'help' us.

[BJJ-Blue]

Do yourselves a favor. Read "Strong on Survival". Buy a gun. And, if you have the opportunity to kill one of these b@st@rds - do it without remorse. If you don't, and even if they get caught... because of our lenient system - they're going to get out and do it again.

And don't forget what political party is anti-gun either.

[BJJ-Blue]

And everyone has the right to judge them for it. There's a reason that Bill Gates is currently one of the most respected rich people around, and it has to do with his philanthropy, not simply his riches. And there's a reason that a number of other billionaires are NOT respected by their societies.

Speak for yourself.

So are you saying you have no respect for a law-abiding self-made billionaire who gives zero back to society, but you respect George Soros who gives back to society, but was a Nazi collaborator?

[MightyB]

The problem is the offshoring of the middle class... and that's because we've allowed too much laissez faire economics. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18239

[MightyB]

"The American economic and political leadership has used its power to serve its own interests at the expense of the American people and their economic prospects. By enriching themselves in the short-run, they have driven the U.S. economy into the ground. The U.S. is on a path to becoming a Third World economy."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18239

[KC Elbows]

Yes, a black man saying that there are gonna be cases where a chance to make it has mitigating factors doesn't know what they're talking about. Try moving to Kansas, the only place I've ever been where Mexicans working in construction, legally or otherwise, usually end up working for themselves because most of the owners don't like mexicans or blacks, and this according to their own words.

Do nothing to counter that sort of thing, and you create various underclasses who owe you nothing.

We have opportunity here, that doesn't mean we rest on our laurels and brag about it, we improve it, unless we're afraid of work.:D

[KC Elbows]

Speak for yourself.

So are you saying you have no respect for a law-abiding self-made billionaire who gives zero back to society, but you respect George Soros who gives back to society, but was a Nazi collaborator?

I'm saying screw both of them. Being law abiding means squat to me, one could be law abiding out of loyalty to the law, or out of cowardice. Being good for one's society and being basically good are the only things worth measuring by, even if good for one's society includes pointing out its unmet needs.

George Washington broke a lot of the laws he chose, up until that point, to live under. He is admirable for not accepting the role of King, among other acts. He was relatively cash poor. Turned away power, poor with money: he is a failure by modern American standards.

[MightyB]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21303

More about globalism. It really is the death of the American middle class and the ultra rich are the one's perpetuating it. I've argued this before - we're not raising the world to our standards, we're driving ours down to the third world.

Nothing will be fixed until we stop allowing the exportation of middle class jobs and eliminate this notion of global free trade. I'm all for trade on a level playing field, one where all sides compete on equal terms and we should dictate those terms with our standards... not China's, not Mexico's, not Vietnam's... etc. and that's not going to happen until we treat all businesses as foreign if they import anything into this country. It means tariffs to equalize wage disparity, it means penalties for violations of "green" and labor policies.

Until we address globalization, nothing will change and nothing will get fixed.

[Drake]

Actually, Bill Gates proves BJJ's point. Nobody forced Gates to give to charity or money for those in need. He does it of his own free will. You can't force something like that.

[BJJ-Blue]

The problem is the offshoring of the middle class... and that's because we've allowed too much laissez faire economics. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18239

I argue it's because increased taxes and regulations have made it cheaper to manufacture in COMMUNIST China than in the US that is the problem.

[KC Elbows]

Actually, Bill Gates proves BJJ's point. Nobody forced Gates to give to charity or money for those in need. He does it of his own free will. You can't force something like that.

I don't recall mentioning forcing anyone in most of my argumentation. I was suggesting that those who don't should rightfully be reviled, and their business should suffer for their betrayal of the society that gave them their chance.

Since the legal system allows dishonest corporations to sue people for criticizing them rightfully, and can win by losing cases that cost their detractors more than they can afford, they get away with dishonest but legal practices, and so are not held culpable for being **** poor Americans in the court of public opinion. Since they influence the system, they are not really regulated. Since there is no chance they will be allowed to fail, there is no free trade.

Since it's already a welfare system, it's just sour grapes to complain about attempts to cover more people than one group making it a welfare system.

If you have some other means for holding the society together, I'd be interested in hearing it, but no politician of any clout is for anything but a welfare state. Since we're arguing pipe dreams, then, I may as well add state confucianism, a pluralistic election system, and trips to Mars to the argument.;):D

[KC Elbows]

I argue it's because increased taxes and regulations have made it cheaper to manufacture in COMMUNIST China than in the US that is the problem.

I know the wages of different people who actually work in China. For manufacturing, the difference in wages is pretty big. It's not just that China does crap for it's workers and consumers in the way of regulations.

BUT, if you'd like to implement some of their ways, I'd assume you're for lining up and shooting execs and CEOs who are caught in dishonest situations, or politicians and businesmen caught in cahoots. Your position has its merits.

[BJJ-Blue]

Actually, Bill Gates proves BJJ's point. Nobody forced Gates to give to charity or money for those in need. He does it of his own free will. You can't force something like that.

Thank you.

If you look at charitable donations by Americans, they were up in the 1980s over the 1970s. And the 80s were 'The Decade of Greed'. Americans are the most giving people on the planet. When we have extra money, we give it. When we don't have extra money, we don't give as much. Cutting income taxes immediately gives millions of working Americans more of their own money to spend as they please. And history has shown that when we have more disposable income, we tend to give more of it to charities.

And as to the Bill Gates example, look at it this way: If Gates gets more tax cuts, he will have more money to give to charities of his choice. Or he can be forced to give more to the Gov't, where they spend it as they choose.

[MightyB]

I argue it's because increased taxes and regulations have made it cheaper to manufacture in COMMUNIST China than in the US that is the problem.

Really... the biggest recipients of welfare in the united states are those corporations that you're talking about. This is in the form of tax incentives, tax breaks, grants, infrastructural augmentation... etc. Yet, in spite of all of these attempts and the free money that they're given... they still leave.

The easiest fix is taxing the difference of what they're trying to escape on the imports regardless of where the corporate figure head office resides.

[KC Elbows]

BJJ, I don't believe Bill Gates agrees with your assessment.

[BJJ-Blue]

I know the wages of different people who actually work in China. For manufacturing, the difference in wages is pretty big. It's not just that China does crap for it's workers and consumers in the way of regulations.

BUT, if you'd like to implement some of their ways, I'd assume you're for lining up and shooting execs and CEOs who are caught in dishonest situations, or politicians and businesmen caught in cahoots. Your position has its merits.

Of course I don't want to do as they do. Hell, they lock up Nobel Peace Prize winners in poltical prisons.

Don't you think it's absolutely terrifying to owe people like that billions, and that we spend alot of that money implementing social programs for the nonproducers of this country?

And fyi, they treat their workers better than we do. They have Gov't controlled healthcare there, the greatest program known to man.

[BJJ-Blue]

Really... the biggest recipients of welfare in the united states are those corporations that you're talking about. This is in the form of tax incentives, tax breaks, grants, infrastructural augmentation... etc. Yet, in spite of all of these attempts and the free money that they're given... they still leave.

The easiest fix is taxing the difference of what they're trying to escape on the imports regardless of where the corporate figure head office resides.

FYI, the USA has either the highest or one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. This 'the rich don't pay taxes' argument is total bs. IRS numbers completely disprove that ridiculous assertion.

[BJJ-Blue]

BJJ, I don't believe Bill Gates agrees with your assessment.

It's 100% true.

He signed that stupid pledge agreeing to give 1/2 of his money to charity when he dies. So the more of his money he keeps, the more goes to charity when he dies. It's basic math.

[KC Elbows]

Of course I don't want to do as they do. Hell, they lock up Nobel Peace Prize winners in poltical prisons.

Don't you think it's absolutely terrifying to owe people like that billions, and that we spend alot of that money implementing social programs for the nonproducers of this country?

And fyi, they treat their workers better than we do. They have Gov't controlled healthcare there, the greatest program known to man.

I've been in plants and on construction sites there. They DO NOT treat those people better than we do, without question. Scary, scary conditions. Do not believe otherwise. They're gonna need that better healthcare, but my money says they'll privatize it to get out of long term paying for the things and dangers they've exposed workers to.

[KC Elbows]

It's 100% true.

He signed that stupid pledge agreeing to give 1/2 of his money to charity when he dies. So the more of his money he keeps, the more goes to charity when he dies. It's basic math.

He does not agree that he should get the break was my point. He doesn't equate reasonable taxes with punishment.

[KC Elbows]

FYI, the USA has either the highest or one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. This 'the rich don't pay taxes' argument is total bs. IRS numbers completely disprove that ridiculous assertion.

This is where things get tricky. A corporation is a person in some senses(one who can't vote or produce children, like a vegetable with a lot of money and lawyers), but a rich person is something different, who likely has corporate holdings, but does not themselves pay corporate taxes in most cases.

[KC Elbows]

To clear up a confusion on what I've been arguing, the down side is not the formation of a KGB, but no haircuts and lots of female infanticide.

Omelettes and eggs.

[Dragonzbane76]

haha come back to read some of this and it's like in left field...haha not even close to the topic. Oh well you'll have that I guess. :)

[BJJ-Blue]

I've been in plants and on construction sites there. They DO NOT treat those people better than we do, without question. Scary, scary conditions. Do not believe otherwise. They're gonna need that better healthcare, but my money says they'll privatize it to get out of long term paying for the things and dangers they've exposed workers to.

I was being sarcastic. They treat workers like **** over there.

How often do we hear about hundreds of miners getting trapped over there? And they have political prisons. And they lock up Nobel Peace Prize winners, and their wives too. My point was that it is not good to owe tyrants like that billions of dollars.

[BJJ-Blue]

This is where things get tricky. A corporation is a person in some senses(one who can't vote or produce children, like a vegetable with a lot of money and lawyers), but a rich person is something different, who likely has corporate holdings, but does not themselves pay corporate taxes in most cases.

But the taxes that the corporation pays are felt by the shareholders. Anything that takes money from the corporation affects the value of the corporation, and the stock price reflects that. Thus the shareholders income from said investments are indeed affected by corporate taxes. And then if the shareholders sell stocks for profit they are hit with capital gains taxes.