Canndo, you have made it apparent your distaste of big business and corporations. So how do you post with mud and twigs? Would you be happier if we all lived in the 16th century?
Litely edited to underline the question: cui bono? A company won't do that without expecting return on investment. I don't know what that return would be in this case. cnHere is an example of my distrust for energy companies - I have watched 3 electric company ads in the last two hours. An electric company does not need to advertise, they know that if we are in their region we will purchase their electricity. Still they come on the air telling us how nice they are, how forward thinking, how concerned they are for our welfare. Rather than simply apply the cost of these ads to defray the cost of electricity, or defray the cost for the poor or disabled, they insist on spending real money from our energy payments to have us love them.
That is why I don't like corporations.
The thing is canndo, those unfettered corporations with good ole competition makes it so your broke ass can afford such accommodations. You're like a burnt out hippy, can form a rebuttal but it doesn't make any sense.Yet again nonthiest, there is this absolute polarity, if I have a problem with unfettered free enterise, I must not want to use computers or live in a normal house. It is not either or, it is not polar and it is possible that even this argument is prompted by energy companies (I haven't looked). "hey, if you don't like energy companies, why are you using electricity"? This is not only a straw man argument (I don't hate energy companies, I just think they need to be well regulated and watched) but it presumes that only large evil companies are capable of giving us electricity.
I would be guilty of the same sort of thing were I to say "if you love corporations so much, why do you grow your own food? why don't you purchase one of everything?)
Now that is absurd, as is your argument.
justanotherhead?The thing is canndo, those unfettered corporations with good ole competition makes it so your broke ass can afford such accommodations. You're like a burnt out hippy, can form a rebuttal but it doesn't make any sense.
Litely edited to underline the question: cui bono? A company won't do that without expecting return on investment. I don't know what that return would be in this case. cn
The thing is canndo, those unfettered corporations with good ole competition makes it so your broke ass can afford such accommodations. You're like a burnt out hippy, can form a rebuttal but it doesn't make any sense.
I would be guilty of the same sort of thing were I to say "if you love corporations so much, why do you grow your own food? why don't you purchase one of everything?)
Grow or make me an 8gig stick of ram and then we will talk, or a cpu, or insulated wire that capable of carrying high frequencies in your back yard.
My world is all polar perceptions and slippery slopes ... but is white&white, so I just don't get it. cnWhat is it with this black and white polar perception the right has? If I say a single good thing for Obama I must be worshiping him, if I bring attention to the problems with free enterprise I must want to go back to the dark ages, If I take issue with police behavior I must be for anarchy. I suppose that is the only way the right can comprehend the world.
You should answer his question, not belittle it. You might be exposed to facts you tend to avoid, so it may be a learning experience for you as well. My questions are how old are you, what state are you in, and what do you do for a living?Althor, these are factual question, I welcome them but I don't see how your asking will result in anything different than your googling them. I see you are leading to something rather than attempting to get information about me or my ideology. I enjoy gotcha debates but I can't see that they would be of any relevence in this thread.
I believe you are trying to blame the housing bubble burst on Fannie, Freddie and Barney. If you want to debate this, start a thread and I will show you where you have been led astray.
He asked a simple question and you gave him ten minutes of dogma.Trickle down economics is the concept that money the few are allowed to keep or are contributed to will find its way to lower economic entities as the top entites hire and spend others reap the results from the flow of money from the top down.
No, trickle down inplies that the better things are for a few points of wealth the more those points of wealth will spend. Should a very rich man be entitled to keep another 10 percent of his money, the theory supposes that the rich man will buy another boat or suit or house which will put people to work bulding that boat or house. In turn those who profit from their bulding the house or boat will spend their money at a cafe or bar and the owners or workers in that cafe or bar will wind up spending their money throughout the economy.
No, all economies are not trickle down. The economy in America is driven by the middle class and not by the rich. The rich profit from any flow of money in any direction - top to bottom, bottom to top or lateraly.
Obama and to a lesser extent Clinton both presided over an economy that is top heavy - the results of years of "trickle down" where what happend in reality is that wealth became concentrated at the top.
A rich man, when he has another $100 to spend will likely not put that monye back into circulation. He will likely not purchase another shirt or go out to dinner more often then he already does. Let a middle class person spend an additional $100 and he will likely purchase a few pairs of jeans in order to replace the worn out ones, he may have his daughter pick up a new pair of shoes, he may indulge in a visit to the Olive Garden with his wife where he would not ordinarily go. The lower down the socioeconomic ladder one injects money the more likely that money is to be circulated.
You should answer his question, not belittle it. You might be exposed to facts you tend to avoid, so it may be a learning experience for you as well. My questions are how old are you, what state are you in, and what do you do for a living?
Weird. cn .He asked a simple question and you gave him ten minutes of dogma.
Three questions, three strikes. You're out.What do hold Mitt Romney to a different standard with his money? im gonna go out on a limb as to say tax evasion is a federal offense
why do you ask how his money in offshore accounts creates jobs?becuase it money in banks in off shore accounts will never create jobs here in the US. prove me wrong
but Obama's money goes unquestioned . . . . when were his finaces questioned and not answered?
"I don't think, however, I knew the name of the PR firm or even their front organizations so I don't have the proof it would take to convince some here." PR firm? WTF are you talking about?I can blame a market that was unregulated and unwatched. What usually happens is that the right blames the CRA, fannie, freddie, Barney and finally Clinton. I have managed to trace this back to several radiocons and I suspect that the propaganda was diseminated through some of the less known radiocons into the public discourse. We have seen this before with the health care legislation and taking the onus off of BP during the spill.
I don't think, however, I knew the name of the PR firm or even their front organizations so I don't have the proof it would take to convince some here.