Obama legitimizes anti-Israeli Muslim Brotherhood (NY Daily News)

[SubwayGuy]

Actually I probably make less money than you do.

 

OK, so then why do you feel that a privileged group of elites of which you are not a part of (and neither am I) should be able to continue to dictate policy for the rest of us in ways that by and large benefit themselves more than any other group?

[SubwayGuy]

This is where I have to ask the obvious question. How do you deal with a $14 trillion deficit?

 

Increase taxes on high income earners (individuals and couples) who have profiteered for the past three decades and recapture their wealth back to pay off the deficit.

 

Lower business taxes simultaneously to encourage more domestic investment here.

 

Close tax loopholes, particularly those that benefit the largest corporations. Corporate taxes should be low, simple, and not subject to creative interpretation.

 

Create tax benefits for American companies that invest in US workforce. Create tax penalties for American companies that do not.

 

Begin paying off foreign debts and raising tariffs on goods, particularly on those made by unfriendly countries (read: China). Paying off debts also reduces the government's operating costs by reducing debt service expenses every year (aka interest on debt).

 

Stay the course.

[SubwayGuy]

But it could be possible that people who grew up in low or middle class homes aren't in those classes anymore.

 

That's not the point. Social mobility is a given in any system except the caste system.

 

The problem is that upward social mobility has never been as difficult to achieve as it is now, since the 1880's. Because the rich keep most of what they have.

 

In order for someone skilled and motivated to go up, someone else has to go down because all economics is a zero sum game. By allowing the rich to hoard, they maintain their standing at the top (often unfairly as many rich inherit - not earn - their wealth), and there's no room for achievers to get there. They may get to "upper middle class" but that's it...it ends there. Now you have stratospheric circles of wealth that 99.5% of Americans never have a remote shot at, and those people control WAY more than is healthy in an economy.

 

I have posted these before I'll post them again. They are good reads on the subject:

 

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/separate-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap-20110223-141311-132.html

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/146510/conservatives_want_to_take_america_back_to_the_1880s?page=1

 

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/decline-workers-power-behind-slow-job-growth-20110119-112412-660.html

 

I never said that we should stop making improvments however I'm sure you've been on the subway and seen the many homeless people that live there. At least you do have a roof over your head that isn't a rat infested tunnel.

 

There will always be someone less fortunate. That doesn't make the current plight OK. America is not about a "roof over your head." America is about the opportunity for the majority of Americans to live a high standard of living in the greatest nation in the world.

 

To believe anything less is acceptable (because, at one time, this nation had that), is stupid, short-sighted, and un-American.

 

I was saying to eliminate the federal minimum wage and put the control of that in each city government. So lets say in NYC it might be $10 dollars an hour because the cost of living is much more than in some rural town upstate where it might be $8 dollars per hour as the cost of living is less there. The 7.25 wage won't get you too far in this city.

 

Bureaucratic nightmare to allow cities and counties to each have their own, and a real headache for employers too. That's why you have to address it at the state level. The states need a baseline to implement their own minimum wages. Hence federal minimum wage.

[SI Subway]

You know it won't be a bad idea to adopt some Socialism into our Democratic/Capitalistic way of life. FDR did it in the 1930's and it really helped the nation. I don't see what is completely wrong with Socialism that you can't use some beneficial ideas from it to help our nation. This fear of Socialism/Communism is not helping us at all. There are some good ideas in other subjects besides Democracy/Capitalism. We just need to look into it, and adopt it. It will really help the nation.

 

Agreed. I don't get why people taboo socialism, when it is possibly just as good as, if not better than, capitalism.

 

Don't speculate. That doctrine created for several reasons:

 

1-to prevent partisanship within the country as its largely immigrant population allied itself with one side or the other (particularly if the US were to "choose a side")

 

2-not so much because of financial inability, but because of wanting to avoid financial commitments in furtherance of FOREIGN aims. and btw, how the HELL is that "not the case currently" - we have a 14 trillion dollar RECORD DEFICIT and you're telling me that we are financially ABLE to continue being involved in foreign conflicts???

 

3-to avoid a network of treaties and alliances that would drag us into additional conflicts in the future

 

NOTE: we did NOT get involved in World War II until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Again, READ YOUR HISTORY. The US was a COMPLETELY NEUTRAL POWER in both World Wars UNTIL (WWI) the Germans continued sinking American vessels and (WWII) the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and shortly after we declared war on Japan, Hitler stupidly and inexplicably declared war on US.

 

The US was initially neutral in those conflicts!!! We weren't running to send troops to Europe because "OH NOES!!! TEH HITLER MIGHT EXPAND TEH GERMANY!!! HE'S GONNA TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!" - we reacted to a direct attack that took many innocent American lives by the Japanese and declared war on them. Then we acted in defense when Germany declared war on us.

 

So your post is invalid.

 

I wish we still only reacted when provoked, like back in the 40s. Countries like Iraq and Vietnam had little to no thread to America, so why did we attack them? (Afghanistan actually did provoke us, so I'm not lumping it in with the others. But how ironic that we found bin Laden in Pakistan, one country over.)

 

f*** their friendship. They don't want anything more than to expand their influence around the globe, and they never have wanted anything more than that. That country lives to have the whole world worship it.

 

We should be focused on paying down their debt with increased taxes on the rich so that we don't have to cowtow to them. Then we reserve the right to tell them to f*** off with their racist, elitist, and exclusive agenda.

 

If we don't provoke China, they won't attack us. That is what I meant. We should act as friends to China, but secretly work on reducing their influence bit by bit.

 

Ah yes, that would sound wonderful wouldn't it? Lower taxes and we all frolic together under rainbows like a bunch of happy leprechaun children forever happily ever after...

 

...except that if there were no taxes, there would be no money for government. No public schools. No money for law enforcement. Public roads. Fire. Mail (post office). Infrastructure. Transportation. A courts system. An army, navy, and air force. Border controls. Securities enforcement.

 

The rich would be able to buy their way to whatever they wanted. They could pay off private vigilantes to let them do what they want. They could raise prices, and no one could tell them otherwise.

 

Lowered taxes sound wonderful except for the fact that when you are FOURTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT OPTION. Taxes need to go up to reduce the deficit (which also reduces how expensive it is to run the country every year since you are not paying debt service costs). And the ONLY way to do that is to TAX THE RICH LIKE WE USED TO when this country was successful.

 

 

 

This is bulls***, plain and simple. If you succeed in life, it's Capitalism that gets all the credit, and if you fail in life well you must just be a lazy SOB with no skills and motivation.

 

Things don't work that way. A lot of really good people wind up in really shitty circumstances, or don't do as well as they could under a different, better system that is a controlled brand of capitalism with some socialistic elements like a highly progressive tax rate, which PROPERLY maintains a distribution of wealth that is proportionate to each social class's VALUE and ACHIEVEMENT. Which is not what we have today.

 

 

 

And there are a lot who don't. What's your point? It is good monetary policy and makes for a healthy economy to recapture the profits of the wealthy and distribute them evenly among all the social classes at some point in time, because all economics is trickle up. If you let things trickle up long enough, the rich control everything, and everyone else gets pissed off and hungry...and that's what this country is RAPIDLY moving towards. It's time to take things back a bit. Not because "waah it's not fair" but because without a middle class this country will turn into a GHOST TOWN and the economy is going to get VERY BAD for a prolonged time.

 

 

 

Again, see above. I don't care how hard they worked. They'd still be better off than everyone else under my system. They'd still have incentive to make money. But they couldn't just gleefully run to the bank and jerk off in the eye of society and spit on the rules like they do now.

 

 

 

Ah yes, the classic "cut spending" argument. Yet another Republican on here with no ideas for how to do this. Give me specific line items you'd cut, let's hear it. I've posted many. All I ever hear is this generic shit. And don't just say "cut welfare" because that's a drop in the bucket nothing more...let's hear the specifics of this "master plan" or let's not hear it at all.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone here is a communist. Now let's refrain from name calling and get back to the task at hand.

 

Nothing I've proposed "makes everyone equal". It brings the incomes of the rich in line with what is expected of a successful society, and redistributes the massive surplus among the other social classes so that they can maintain a decent standard of living, which is not possible now.

 

Right now the cashier gets $10 an hour and the CEO gets $1,500 an hour.

 

What I'm suggesting makes it most efficient for a corp to pay the cashier $15 an hour, the CEO gets $800 an hour, and a lot of other cashiers get $15 an hour too.

 

All so true. Except the part about calling people communists, in which nycbusfan was referring to Obama's "friends" (and I use that term loosely), and not anyone here.

Its very simple stop spending so much money. Obama has spent more than any other president in history and he will be president till at least 2013.

 

Have you adjusted for inflation? Bush spent quite alot on two wars during his presidency...

 

 

 

I'm not saying that every last person will be a millionaire but statistics show that most likely you will be more successful than your parents were. Just work hard and be happy with what you have. Remember there are people in a much worse situation than you are.

 

Again, inflation.

 

If you worked to make that money why should the government be able to take it away from you and give it to somebody else who might be handing out fliers on a street corner. If you want to give it to the less fourtionate go for it but nobody should be able to force you.

 

The problem is that nobody wants to. The only way that person on the street will get to eat three square meals a day is through economic assistance until he/she can find a job.

 

But why should they be forced to raise pay for the cashier. If a company wanted to pay $15 dollars an hour then I'm all for it but I don't support the government forcing them to pay more. Unless you work for the government they shouldn't have any say in how much you are getting paid as long as how you are getting this money is within the law.

 

I also think the federal minimum wage should be $0.00. Each city should set its own minimum wage based on the living costs of that city. 7.25 will go alot farther in some rural town in North Dakota than it will in New York City.

 

It's called raising the minimum wage. I agree with city-range minimum wages, but they should all be higher (especially in the cities) than 7.25.

 

It's not about blaming Obama, that's what no one here seems to get. OK fine you all think Obama sucks? OK. I can't really disagree at this point. But FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL NOT SUCK. Oh wait there isn't anyone.

 

And again, what is it with people around here speaking in generalities? How do you plan to cut 14 trillion dollars of deficit? By "cutting spending" OK but what does that mean? Getting rid of vital services like police and fire which largely benefit the middle class? Nope. Reducing the education system which is already a joke before you cut its budget more? Nope. Ending investment in infrastructure so that things start falling apart, people get killed due to unsafe conditions? Nope. Let's hear some specific examples for a change.

 

 

 

Perhaps you have heard of something called inflation. When you adjust for it, the middle class of today is NO better off than the middle class of 30 years ago, and in some cases has done worse. However when you adjust the earnings and wealth of the wealthy for inflation, they are doing SIGNIFICANTLY better than they were 30 years ago. They have had 30 years to write all the rules and get everything they want and they will not stop until they have it all.

 

And the saddest, most pathetic part of all is that people who are not in that social class, who are f***ed over by that social class every day...agree with that social class because they wish they could be them.

 

And no one should "be happy with what they have" - it should be a goal of this country to KEEP MAKING IT BETTER like we did for close to 200 years before we STOPPED and just decided to HOARD and tell those with less to accept their situation in life.

 

 

 

Because the government needs that money to provide vital services that failed when privatized - like schools, fire, police, post office, transit, infrastructure.

 

That's the problem is that people on this site don't READ. Nowhere did I say steal from the rich and start giving the poor handouts. Nowhere did I say expand welfare or workfare or food stamps.

 

ALL I've said is rewrite the tax code to reduce business taxes (keeping them here), INCREASE individual/joint high earner taxes SIGNIFICANTLY, and that creates an incentive for businesses to treat their workers more fairly instead of simply overpaying their executives. That creates a situation where more people make more money and the rich take home less, but they can still get paid whatever the company wants to pay them. The nice thing is if they continue to take advantage of the system, then the government will recapture it in taxes and pay down the debt, meaning the working and middle classes won't have to.

 

But everyone "works for what they get" under everything I've suggested. The problem is some people here seem to believe the great lie that the lives of the rich are "WORTH" more than the lives of anyone else. They're not. They're just people like you and me and their interests are no more valuable than yours or mine.

 

 

 

Stimulus and bailout money absolutely should be cut. But even without stimulus and bailout money we are still churning out record deficits and have been since the Bush days.

 

Printing currency and devaluing the dollar is horses*** and Ben Bernanke is an idiot. So we agree here.

 

But that alone is not going to lead to running a surplus.

 

 

 

Again, read above. They wouldn't be forced. If they chose to keep paying the CEO a shit ton, the money would be taxed more. OR they could do what's healthy for a well balanced economy and give their hourlies a pay raise. Then there's tax savings to be had in that...FOR THE COMPANY.

 

 

 

Bulls***. If you make the minimum wage 0, people will work for 25 cents. The elite don't care about the standard of living for their workers. Go back and read your history. Read about the industrial revolution. Factory workers and working conditions. The nonexistence of worker's compensation. The Gilded Age. The robber barons. And all the abuses the rich have been committing on the poor and working and middle classes for thousands of years and then tell me we don't need a minimum wage.

 

The federal minimum wage should be equivalent to the lowest possible standard of living in the country. The state minimum wages should be determined by the states, and many be higher. But to say the federal minimum wage should be $0 is ridiculous.

 

Verry good points. No comments here accept agreeance (not a word).

 

Increase taxes on high income earners (individuals and couples) who have profiteered for the past three decades and recapture their wealth back to pay off the deficit.

 

Lower business taxes simultaneously to encourage more domestic investment here.

 

Close tax loopholes, particularly those that benefit the largest corporations. Corporate taxes should be low, simple, and not subject to creative interpretation.

 

Create tax benefits for American companies that invest in US workforce. Create tax penalties for American companies that do not.

 

Begin paying off foreign debts and raising tariffs on goods, particularly on those made by unfriendly countries (read: China)...

 

Stay the course

 

You forgot one: cut military spending. How many of the wars and invasions in the last 60-70 years has been either worth it, successful, or both? Name one. That's right, there hasn't been one. The military should only be used for defensive purpouses, not for invasion after invasion of countries that pose no threat to us.

[Tokkemon]

You forgot one: cut military spending. How many of the wars and invasions in the last 60-70 years has been either worth it, successful, or both? Name one. That's right, there hasn't been one. The military should only be used for defensive purpouses, not for invasion after invasion of countries that pose no threat to us.

 

World War II and the first Persian Gulf War come to mind, for starters.

[SI Subway]

World War II and the first Persian Gulf War come to mind, for starters.

 

World war II was 72 years old (started in 1939), I said 60-70. I'm going by the year the war started, not when it lasted to. The persian gulf war was another case where we "helped" without being wanted or asked, although that was the only case where we "helped" and succeeded. However, because of the nature of the war, I am not counting it. I said neccessary or successful

[Tokkemon]

The USA didn't enter WWII until 1941...

 

But yes, you're right.

[Hawk Operator]

And there's huge budget deficits because there isn't enough money coming in from taxes too

 

Since American multi billion dollar corporations are no longer taxed as they are off shore and tax $$$ unneccessarily subsidizes these same corporations, hedge fund managers and other "wall streeters" steal daily without consequences, hospitals overcharge over 1000%+ for even aspirin, and every body, from every where is entitled, without paying into it, to take from a system that we, American taxpayers paid into, there is bound to be huge deficits.

 

And lastly, your same tax dollars are supporting "defense" based companies (guns, bombs, Hallibuton, Bushes investments) for a few trillion dollars per year, yeah buddy is there going to be huge deficits.

 

But remember this isn't the cause, it is the working taxpaying people who caused all this mess, at least according to elected policticians.:tdown:

[SI Subway]

And lastly, your same tax dollars are supporting "defense" based companies (guns, bombs, Hallibuton, Bushes investments) for a few trillion dollars per year, yeah buddy is there going to be huge deficits.

 

That's what I've been saying this whole time!!! Yay! Someone agrees with me!

[SubwayGuy]

If we don't provoke China, they won't attack us. That is what I meant. We should act as friends to China, but secretly work on reducing their influence bit by bit.

 

China only wants things that hurt us and help them. They are pushing for us to accept the devaluation of their currency and they want to INCREASE their exports to us and therefore our trade dependency.

 

We should simply IGNORE THEM and REBUFF ALL ATTEMPTS.

 

Simultaneously, we should reduce our dependence on them, pay off debts, reduce their influence and make it NOT WORTH THEIR TIME to argue with us, or attack us.

 

However we sure as shit should not be their "friends" nor should we give them a DAMN thing they want.

 

Instead, we should IGNORE them and build toward the day that we can tell them to FVCK OFF

 

You forgot one: cut military spending. How many of the wars and invasions in the last 60-70 years has been either worth it, successful, or both? Name one. That's right, there hasn't been one. The military should only be used for defensive purpouses, not for invasion after invasion of countries that pose no threat to us.

 

Yes, this is true, but it must be done gradually out of necessity (not because of the militiary situation) but because of the economic situation where we must have jobs waiting here for soldiers upon their return...can't just let veterans add to the unemployment rolls. That's a disrespect to their service to this nation, and it's not fair to everyone else either who has to try and find work.

[Tokkemon]

If America could produce cheaper products than China, there would be no issue.

 

Perhaps all that technology we have (supposedly) should be put to better use.

[SoSpectacular]

Pretty much...

[SI Subway]

China only wants things that hurt us and help them. They are pushing for us to accept the devaluation of their currency and they want to INCREASE their exports to us and therefore our trade dependency.

 

We should simply IGNORE THEM and REBUFF ALL ATTEMPTS.

 

Simultaneously, we should reduce our dependence on them, pay off debts, reduce their influence and make it NOT WORTH THEIR TIME to argue with us, or attack us.

 

However we sure as shit should not be their "friends" nor should we give them a DAMN thing they want.

 

Instead, we should IGNORE them and build toward the day that we can tell them to FVCK OFF

 

That's not what I said. I said we should act like we're their friends, while secretly stabbing them in the back. I said that we should do everything you said in your third paragraph, but again secretly as not to provoke them and start World War 3 (which we probably would lose).

 

Yes, this is true, but it must be done gradually out of necessity (not because of the militiary situation) but because of the economic situation where we must have jobs waiting here for soldiers upon their return...can't just let veterans add to the unemployment rolls. That's a disrespect to their service to this nation, and it's not fair to everyone else either who has to try and find work.

 

Again, I never said that. Veterans would not be left out in the cold, they would have the benefits that they currently do. I'm talking about the acual people serving. They should all come home and only be used as a reserve if we actually are attacked or threatened with attack. (No more "they have weapons of mass destruction" bullcrap, we need actual evidence.)

 

If America could produce cheaper products than China, there would be no issue.

 

Perhaps all that technology we have (supposedly) should be put to better use.

 

Well, in america, we have something called a minimum wage. The secret to China's cheapness is that they pay their workers next to nothing. That way, they don't have to jack up the price to account for $7.25 an hour per employee.

[Tokkemon]

Well, in america, we have something called a minimum wage. The secret to China's cheapness is that they pay their workers next to nothing. That way, they don't have to jack up the price to account for $7.25 an hour per employee.

 

Except we have technology (i.e. machines) that can do the work of several hundred, maybe even thousands of workers. That efficiency is certainly cheaper than minimum wage.

[SI Subway]

Except we have technology (i.e. machines) that can do the work of several hundred, maybe even thousands of workers. That efficiency is certainly cheaper than minimum wage.

 

First, do we really want to lay off thousands of workers, especially in this economic climate? Second, if we can afford these machines, China can afford twice as many, and are probably already working on it.

[Tokkemon]

Lay off what workers? The manufacturing industry is dead in the USA for all intents and purposes.

[SubwayGuy]

If America could produce cheaper products than China, there would be no issue.

 

Perhaps all that technology we have (supposedly) should be put to better use.

 

It's easy to make products for cheap when you are paying people slave wages.

 

It is not America's job to compete with the modern day equivalent of slavery by creating its own form of near-slavery. It is America's job to prevent the sale of such crappily made products within its borders...to create a free market within fair competition. Unfair competitors (like China) be damned.

[SubwayGuy]

That's not what I said. I said we should act like we're their friends, while secretly stabbing them in the back. I said that we should do everything you said in your third paragraph, but again secretly as not to provoke them and start World War 3 (which we probably would lose).

 

 

 

Again, I never said that. Veterans would not be left out in the cold, they would have the benefits that they currently do. I'm talking about the acual people serving. They should all come home and only be used as a reserve if we actually are attacked or threatened with attack. (No more "they have weapons of mass destruction" bullcrap, we need actual evidence.)

 

Semantics...

[qjtransitmaster]

Woah wait. We barely know anything about the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, and we are helping them? They can be Islamist. They can be our worse enemies. If they want to they can attack us. I don't think we should help any movement in the Middle East that are calling themselves Democratic right now, because they could just be sugar coating us to get rid of their dictators. Once they do that there is chance they will set up an Islamic Republic like Iran. We can't trust these people. These are basically the people that danced when 9/11 happened. I won't trust these people with my life for God's sake.

 

actually unlike AQ they aren't interested in bombs or death to america like radical islam is they are more interested in peace

[SI Subway]

actually unlike AQ they aren't interested in bombs or death to america like radical islam is they are more interested in peace

 

Which is why we are supporting them.

[Hawk Operator]

I said we should act like we're their friends, while secretly stabbing them in the back. I said that we should do everything you said in your third paragraph, but again secretly as not to provoke them and start World War 3 (which we probably would lose).

 

 

 

Secretly? sure and all good things eventually come to an end. As for WWIII that would do wonders for the world wide economies, and FYI: We would not lose an outright war, we adapt, overcome, and improvise kicking their a**es to the Almighty's kingdom of Eternal peace.:tup:

 

Hoorah!

[Hawk Operator]

actually unlike AQ they aren't interested in bombs or death to america like radical islam is they are more interested in peace

 

No organized religion is truly interested in total peace, in total peace "God" is no longer needed.

[SI Subway]

Secretly? sure and all good things eventually come to an end. As for WWIII that would do wonders for the world wide economies, and FYI: We would not lose an outright war, we adapt, overcome, and improvise kicking their a**es to the Almighty's kingdom of Eternal peace.:tup:

 

Hoorah!

 

How would a war do "wonders" for the economy? Iraq and Vietnam did nothing for us, in fact, they were part of the problem. Taxpayer dollars being wasted in countries that didn't even threaten us. What makes that "good"?

 

We lost an outright war (or rather were about to lose when we pulled out) to a developing nation, Vietnam. What makes you think that we would win against a world superpower that rules our butts?

 

No organized religion is truly interested in total peace, in total peace "God" is no longer needed.

 

"Peace" means without quarrels, in this case, quarrels between them, the Middle East, and the United States. They are not a John Lennonist group who wants world-wide peace, just an end to fighting in the Middle East.

[Tokkemon]

How quickly we forget about the economic benefits of World War II.

[SubwayGuy]

How quickly we forget about the economic benefits of World War II.

 

That's because back then, things were made here. Also, the United States supplied the Allies until the bombing of Pearl Harbor, running a trade surplus, two preconditions that no longer exist.