U.S. Marines versus United Auto Workers Union

[sfzombie13 310]

man, you need to get a clue. and let me know where you got those rose colored glasses that you seem to look at the govt through, i could use some faith in the system. oh, and what about the govt sticking their collective noses in this shiavo case, after the supreme court refused to rule on th estate court's decision. all of them judges must be doing something wrong. illegal, no. morally wrong. in their eyes. i am sick of the govt forcing their morality on the rest of the country.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

i am sick of the govt forcing their morality on the rest of the country.

i completely agree. another fine example is the congessional hearings on steroids in baseball. i am firmly against steroids in pro sports, but there are countless other thing congress needs to be doing with our money besides having a witchhunt.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[billvon 2,463]

> Their OWN money? To whom, exactly, do you believe the money that >the Federal government takes out of your paycheck belongs?

Me, of course. Not the government, or even the government's investment bankers.

And let me make my point clear here. If you are proposing that the social security set up an OPTIONAL investment account where you can either have the government invest your money or just give it back to you so you can invest it yourself, then that's less troublesome. However, if the plan is that the government keeps your money and invests it for you, I am against that sort of socialistic invesment system.

>Pay MORE in taxes? How much is enough?

Whatever we need to support the programs that we as a people decide we need. Want to pay less taxes? Have fewer trillion dollar wars. Want more wars and lower taxes? Sorry charlie.

>What makes you think the gov't would exert complete control over
> private accounts of any sort? It would merely serve as the collection
> agent.

Nonsense. If they didn't want to exert control they'd give it back to you to invest yourself. They keep it because they want to control it. That's the purpose of investment accounts - to have government control over people's money in a more palatable form.

>What amount of air time on any network has been purchased? How
> much $$ has been expended towards this purchase? How much has
> been obligated for this purchase? NONE. NO air time has been
> purchased. NO $$ has been expended for air time. NO $$ has been
> obligated for air time.

Tens of thousands of dollars of public money has been used to purchase airtime on which false news reports are aired to garner public support for the president's programs. Deny it all you want; everyone else can read the news. The GAO agrees with me and denounces the practice:
------------------------
WASHINGTON - Congressional investigators warned federal agencies this week that the promotion of government policies through video news releases meant to look like TV news stories may violate federal rules against propaganda.

In a letter sent Thursday to heads of government departments and agencies, the Government Accountability Office noted that "prepackaged news stories have become common tools of the public relations industry."

"television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government. We concluded that those prepackaged news stories violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition."
-----------------------
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has promoted its education law with a video that comes across as a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid with taxpayer money.
-------------------

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

"television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government. We concluded that those prepackaged news stories violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition."

TV news programs, eh? So a commercial network got these video press-releases, aired them, and didn't let the audience know the reporter[sic] in the clip wasn't really a reporter? Hmm...one would think that, as with a hand gun, the manner in which a video press release is used is the responsibility of the user. But that's just me.

Quote

And let me make my point clear here. If you are proposing that the social security set up an OPTIONAL investment account where you can either have the government invest your money or just give it back to you so you can invest it yourself, then that's less troublesome. However, if the plan is that the government keeps your money and invests it for you, I am against that sort of socialistic invesment system.

Giving it back completely would mean 99%+ of the populace would spend it vice invest it. By maintaining an account controlled by the taxpayer in all regards save withdrawals, from which funds could not be expended until retirement the govt produces an alternate source of income for Americans who choose to opt into such a system.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 2,463]

>one would think that, as with a hand gun, the manner in which a video
>press release is used is the responsibility of the user. But that's just me.

The law disagrees. It's a crime to pay someone to kill someone else. Most people see that when you pay to make something happen, you bear some of the responsibility for it happening.

>Giving it back completely would mean 99%+ of the populace would spend
> it vice invest it.

Well, more like 50%, since around 50% of workers do voluntarily invest in IRA's/401k's. And that is 100% their decision. I disagree that the government should make decisions for you "for your own good." It would surely be a good thing for the government to prevent you from smoking; that alone would save billions in medicare costs. Would you support a law - for your own good of course - that outlawed smoking? How about drinking?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

>one would think that, as with a hand gun, the manner in which a video
>press release is used is the responsibility of the user. But that's just me.

The law disagrees. It's a crime to pay someone to kill someone else. Most people see that when you pay to make something happen, you bear some of the responsibility for it happening.

>Giving it back completely would mean 99%+ of the populace would spend
> it vice invest it.

Well, more like 50%, since around 50% of workers do voluntarily invest in IRA's/401k's. And that is 100% their decision. I disagree that the government should make decisions for you "for your own good." It would surely be a good thing for the government to prevent you from smoking; that alone would save billions in medicare costs. Would you support a law - for your own good of course - that outlawed smoking? How about drinking?

I agree with you in that I wouldn't want the government investing my money, but I think it would be great if I could put it in my 401K instead of SS, that way it will actually be there when I need it.

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

in response to jim, i don't think ANY person is worth $10000 in one month. that includes every single citizen in the us, all of them.

Of course there are people who's labor is worth that much per month. Those who can find someone to pay that much. If you can, then your labor's worth that much. If you cannot, then it's not. Simple market forces. The same market forces which unions counteract.

Quote

and strong-arming? man, you're living in the 60's. get your facts straight before you start spouting off.

Getting defensive are we? i wasn't spouting. unlike you i was conversing respectfully. there are plenty of waste and bs on both sides of the business table. and yes, i've been in the middle of teamster strongarming (in the 90s, not 60s) to know they're lifeblood is in keeping their membership riled.

How do you feel about a local sec-treas making over $200,000 while the members he represents make $10 an hour?

Quote

you guys need some lessons in economics.

Actually, that would be you. your oversimplification ('that's too much', 'that's not enough') ignores basic economics. check this out. if a business owner can pay the least he can for the most labor, and sells his products for the most he can get, and stays in business, and does it legally and ethically, and there are millions left over for him to pocket, then more power to him. and that's basic economics.
(ed. spelling)