"I will not raise taxes" said a big fat liar...

[XtremeRevolution]

9 pages in and I've seen absolutely no name-calling or childish behavior. I am impressed. I've never been on a forum that could do that before. Thanks for making my job easy, lol.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using AutoGuide.Com Free App

[rustinn]

Every single person in state and federal government. Fire them all. If you have been in office less than 4 years, you can run again. All the rest of you m*******ckers need to resign.

Our representatives are hired to do exactly that, to represent the majority opinion of Americans. Even if you succeed in kicking them all out, the next batch of representatives will be absolutely no different if you haven't changed the mindset Americans have towards entitlements, taxes, welfare, etc. Government is not a parental figure, it isn't a church, it isn't a charity, it isn't a money tree. All these things we do in our own lives through voluntary interaction and association, and history has shown it works out best that way.

You have to change the way a populace thinks before you expect "government" to restructure "itself".

[rustinn]

I agree though i believe that subsidies and bailouts are sometimes a necessary evil. Think of where we might be had GM not gotten a bailout. Millions of people without jobs just from GM. Then add in all their supplier who would have to cut production and those workers who would lose their job. The bailout saved jobs and now GM is bringing thousands of jobs back to America. So it may not always be good. But sometimes, as in gm and chryslers case, necessary.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App

Does breaking windows help the economy? Is it a necessary evil, to destroy things in order to stimulate economic growth? The savior figure Obama and Bush have made out for themselves in saving GM is what you see, but have you ever thought about that which isn't seen?

What could have been done with that massive amount of money; what industry could have been bettered, what business could have flourished, what innovation could have spurred -- had individuals been able to spend that money otherwise spent by the government to save a dying company.

There is no free lunch, everything imposes costs. Billions of dollars have their effect on the economy. Unfortunately this effect is often unseen.

This is the most persist economic fallacy people have made since the New Deal. I suggest everyone on this planet read Bastiat's, "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen".

[steve333]

Oh boy... No one is poisoning our food. Genetically Modified Foods allow us to produce significantly more food per acreage thereby lowering costs to consumers at a substantial rate. The utterly disgusting to you is an affordable luxury to others. If you wish to attach irrational phobia (based on no science at all) to food virtually everyone eats, you are free to buy organic... that is if you're willing to pay the price.

Absolutely false. GMO crops do NOT increase yields, the only reason monsanto developed them is so farmers can spray as much roundup on the crops as possible and not kill the produce. This means more pesticides and studies have shown roundup to be a dangerous chemical, both to humans and the soil.
As for GMOs themselves there are hundreds of studies showing the dangers and not one study showing that they are safe. Monsanto even admits there are no safety studies stating because the FDA doesn't require one. That's because Monsanto paid off the FDA and USDA back during the first Bush administration.
Here's a few links, get some knowledge:

CRIIGEN Study Links GM Maize and Roundup to Premature Death and Cancer

Green America: April/May 2012: Our Interview with Jeffrey Smith

http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13631

Tons of Info:

Organic Consumers Association: Millions Against Monsanto

[rustinn]

Absolutely false. GMO crops do NOT increase yields, the only reason monsanto developed them is so farmers can spray as much roundup on the crops as possible and not kill the produce. This means more pesticides and studies have shown roundup to be a dangerous chemical, both to humans and the soil.
As for GMOs themselves there are hundreds of studies showing the dangers and not one study showing that they are safe. Monsanto even admits there are no safety studies stating because the FDA doesn't require one. That's because Monsanto paid off the FDA and USDA back during the first Bush administration.
Here's a few links, get some knowledge:

CRIIGEN Study Links GM Maize and Roundup to Premature Death and Cancer

Green America: April/May 2012: Our Interview with Jeffrey Smith

Now glyphosate found in people's urine

Tons of Info:

Organic Consumers Association: Millions Against Monsanto

I really don't care much to get into this. It boils down to this: Don't like non-organic food, don't buy it. Let the rest of us decide for ourselves what we can and can't put in our mouths.

[steve333]

I really don't care much to get into this. It boils down to this: Don't like non-organic food, don't buy it. Let the rest of us decide for ourselves what we can and can't put in our mouths.

Non organic food doesn't mean GMO. There is plenty of food that's fine if its not organic but not fine if its GMO.
The rest of you can decide what you want to put in your mouth after foods are labeled GMO or not, or don't you think that people have a right to know whether or not they're eating foods spliced with foreign DNA like pesticides?

Interesting how you formed an opinion without knowing anything about it, though. Whatever floats your boat.

[NYCruze2012]

I always vote for Alfred E. Neumann. I truly believe that someday he will get elected!

I'm telling you the truth officer! I wasn't speeding but I sure passed a whole bunch of people who were!

[ErikBEggs]

Our representatives are hired to do exactly that, to represent the majority opinion of Americans. Even if you succeed in kicking them all out, the next batch of representatives will be absolutely no different if you haven't changed the mindset Americans have towards entitlements, taxes, welfare, etc. Government is not a parental figure, it isn't a church, it isn't a charity, it isn't a money tree. All these things we do in our own lives through voluntary interaction and association, and history has shown it works out best that way.

You have to change the way a populace thinks before you expect "government" to restructure "itself".

Our current political representatives have so many political and corporate ties with their own agendas that it is flat out vomit inducing. Don't think for a second that the wall street greedheads don't have it in with Congress. A fresh start would be a big help. That and massive pay cuts for the positions. You want to make a difference? Do it on less pay. Keep the benefits, incentive for the job.

My boss last year always suggested that politicians not make more than twice the median income of the district they serve. Sounds more than fair if you ask me... create some jobs, increase your own paycheck

[rustinn]

Our current political representatives have so many political and corporate ties with their own agendas that it is flat out vomit inducing. Don't think for a second that the wall street greedheads don't have it in with Congress. A fresh start would be a big help. That and massive pay cuts for the positions. You want to make a difference? Do it on less pay. Keep the benefits, incentive for the job.

My boss last year always suggested that politicians not make more than twice the median income of the district they serve. Sounds more than fair if you ask me... create some jobs, increase your own paycheck

As much as I want to agree with you, the notion of crony capitalism vs real capitalism has been the lamented bromide of Americans since as far back as the Carter era. It's easy to blame a country's woes on big bad businessmen just as Hitler blamed the Jews for all of Germany's economic woes. Granted, this idea of a private sector / public sector unity did not come about by corporate-state collusion; it came about entirely democratically. It was both the left and the right that have championed, throughout history, [by definition] socialist programs that united the private industry with public policy. And believe it or not, many Americans actually prefer the government's monopoly on energy, education, public works, etc. I'm "afraid" to say we can't blame our country's philosophical downturn on greedy people; that to me is a dim explanation.

We have made it punishable to NOT collude with government, because our own businesses have every opportunity to be attacked legally by government by virtue of graft.

And even then, for ever 1 corporate lobbyist, there are probably a hundred union, conversationalist, environmentalist, lawyer, accountant, etc. lobbyists. It's not just corporations.

You know about a year ago the government started rolling out these commercials advertising phones for the "phoneless," that is, people who can't afford cell phones. After doing some research, this program is provided by Virgin Mobile, but is paid for by taxpayers. Now, the one sided, close minded people who will never think differently can say OH HERE WE GO AGAIN! Greedy corporations out to screw us with our own tax dollars!... Or you could be more level headed and ask yourself why these programs truly come into existence. Because we the American populace have made it proper to create unity between the public and private sector, which is euphemism for socialism. All Virgin Mobile is doing is providing their service as they normally would, probably at a discount because of wholesale advantages. It's not the corporations to blame, it's the people who think government has a large role in our lives that should be blamed.

In the words of Milton Friedman, I'm on your side, but you're not.

[silverls]

Does breaking windows help the economy? Is it a necessary evil, to destroy things in order to stimulate economic growth? The savior figure Obama and Bush have made out for themselves in saving GM is what you see, but have you ever thought about that which isn't seen?

What could have been done with that massive amount of money; what industry could have been bettered, what business could have flourished, what innovation could have spurred -- had individuals been able to spend that money otherwise spent by the government to save a dying company.

There is no free lunch, everything imposes costs. Billions of dollars have their effect on the economy. Unfortunately this effect is often unseen.

This is the most persist economic fallacy people have made since the New Deal. I suggest everyone on this planet read Bastiat's, "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen".

Take a lesson from your own idea. Because what is unseen to you is exactly the disaster to our economy had our government let millions of people lose their jobs. Instead, GM and chrysler were saved, millions of jobs were saved, and both companies are now creating jobs in the united states as well as getting closer everyday to repaying their debt.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using AutoGuide.Com Free App