Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
can you hear me now!

Made In America week....more hypocrisy on parade

94 posts in this topic

43 minutes ago, jdsample said:

He does however use an exorbitant amount of energy.  If we all followed his example, it would have a major impact on CO2 production. 
Owning a coal plant is not relevant if you live on the grid.  You are using whatever energy comes from your local power plant. 

The relevant set for the Gore example is other private citizens. Your comment is silly: how many private citizens have the means, desire or need to travel like Gore does?

The relevant set for the Trump example is other manufacturers of products sold in the US.  The companies HE lectures. Unlike the Gore example, there is nothing that differentiates Trump from the rest of the set in this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

So you're talking about the workers, not the cars themselves?

I'm talking about the workers, factories, assembly lines, anything that can be taxed or regulated in the process. Everything but the cars themselves.  A factory in the US is at a disadvantage when it comes to the regulations and wages. I'm not saying what they do in those countries is the right thing, it's not, but they can build a car for half the price a US based factory can, we can't compete. And I'm not suggesting slave labor and unsafe work environment, like them, I believe there is a middle ground that can be reached to bring the factories back here, and we can become competitive once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ms maggie said:

The relevant set for the Gore example is other private citizens. Your comment is silly: how many private citizens have the means, desire or need to travel like Gore does?

The relevant set for the Trump example is other manufacturers of products sold in the US.  The companies HE lectures. Unlike the Gore example, there is nothing that differentiates Trump from the rest of the set in this matter.

You can split hairs and try to make distinctions, but both are preaching one thing and not following their own preaching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

I asked for solutions, not stories about the BCFD (an outstanding group of people btw). What you have here is an environmental concern and a local government, not an example of an industry that is over-regulated. You are demonstrating one of those flaws with the libertarian mindset-- everyman for himself doesn't work very well in an organized and orderly society....the government does need to ensure there is a reasonable and enforceable standards...no matter how much the plutocrats scream... 

 

I'm not sure what company it was early on that Trump was taking credit for saving a company from moving to Mexico very early on. But one of the CEOs said he would keep the corporate rate with no reduction, if they could walk back some of the more unreasonable regulations. He said that was the main cause for the plant to be moving to Mexico in the first place.

I asked for solutions: Roll back some of the more unreasonable regulation.

not stories about the BCFD: It was an example of an unreasonable special interest groups that "donate" to a politician to turn a goofball idea into a regulation. The reason I choose that one, it both would cost more money and endanger lives, because the longer it took to resolve the problem, the more time there was to loose more lives and property.

You are demonstrating one of those flaws with the libertarian mindset-- everyman for himself doesn't work very well in an organized and orderly society.

I'm not sure if you want and like minded exaggeration like " You are demonstrating one of those flaws with the democrat mindset--  you got a problem? Raise taxes." or " You are demonstrating one of those flaws with the republican mindset-- "They want people to die!"

The belittling of parties with insults is boring.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

I'm talking about the workers, factories, assembly lines, anything that can be taxed or regulated in the process. Everything but the cars themselves.  A factory in the US is at a disadvantage when it comes to the regulations and wages. I'm not saying what they do in those countries is the right thing, it's not, but they can build a car for half the price a US based factory can, we can't compete. And I'm not suggesting slave labor and unsafe work environment, like them, I believe there is a middle ground that can be reached to bring the factories back here, and we can become competitive once again.

I don't see it happening as long as the corporations make huge profits and CEO's make huge salaries.  Take away the taxes, regulations, etc. and they would only make bigger profits and bigger salaries.  The savings would not be passed onto the workers or the consumers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

 

I'm not sure what company it was early on that Trump was taking credit for saving a company from moving to Mexico very early on. But one of the CEOs said he would keep the corporate rate with no reduction, if they could walk back some of the more unreasonable regulations. He said that was the main cause for the plant to be moving to Mexico in the first place.

I asked for solutions: Roll back some of the more unreasonable regulation.

not stories about the BCFD: It was an example of an unreasonable special interest groups that "donate" to a politician to turn a goofball idea into a regulation. The reason I choose that one, it both would cost more money and endanger lives, because the longer it took to resolve the problem, the more time there was to loose more lives and property.

You are demonstrating one of those flaws with the libertarian mindset-- everyman for himself doesn't work very well in an organized and orderly society.

I'm not sure if you want and like minded exaggeration like " You are demonstrating one of those flaws with the democrat mindset--  you got a problem? Raise taxes." or " You are demonstrating one of those flaws with the republican mindset-- "They want people to die!"

The belittling of parties with insults is boring.

 

you have yet to identify what the regulations are that seem to be of concern...until you do, you are just quoting an individual concerned about profits, nothing else...the owner wants to operate in an unfettered manner....and as it turns out, Carrier is moving the jobs any way....

again, you automatic assumption is the government is in the wrong....you haven't provided proof....

if I recall correctly you were a Marine.....here is an example where standards were ignored....what if you had to wear the defective body armor? Would you be ok with that? Cases like this highlight why there needs to be oversight, regulations, and standards...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/pentagon-study-links-fatalities-to-body-armor.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-louise-slaughter/a-story-ignored-body-armo_b_71524.html

unfettered capitalism disguised as "free market".....remember "Greed is good"

Edited by can you hear me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jdsample said:

You can split hairs and try to make distinctions, but both are preaching one thing and not following their own preaching. 

Distinctions? Trump tells other manufacturers to keep ops onshore. He doesn't.

Gore doesn't tell people not to fly.

It's not difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mrsmlh said:

I don't see it happening as long as the corporations make huge profits and CEO's make huge salaries.  Take away the taxes, regulations, etc. and they would only make bigger profits and bigger salaries.  The savings would not be passed onto the workers or the consumers.

Am I understanding you correctly,(typed ideas can be taken wrong), are you saying the CEOs and "corporation"(I guess you mean stockholders) raised their income too high is the reason they couldn't compete with Mexico? The corporate taxes and regulations had no effect on the bottom line? Because that CEO said they would gladly pay the corporate tax as is, if they could roll back some of the more unreasonable regs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

part two of my response:

I am not belittling Libertarians, I am pointing out a specific criticism of their platform from 2016:

Libertarians have faith in the free market and believe that there’s little the government can do to pressure businesses or individuals that would be better than the power of the “Invisible Hand.”  

That means unrestricted competition among financial institutions as well as the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security and income taxes.  

The main argument is that social pressure and the free market will convince individuals and companies to donate to charity to help the less fortunate -- replacing the need for the government-run social safety-net -- or make business decisions to protect the environment in the hopes of being rewarded by the market for those efforts.  

as for individual freedom--

The idea of individual freedom defines the libertarian movement—it’s the party of limited government, in all forms.  

“We are the only political party that stands for your right to pursue happiness in any way you choose as long as you don’t hurt anyone else and as long as you don’t take their stuff,”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281399-5-things-the-libertarian-party-stands-for

as we all know, human beings are flawed and this part of the libertarian philosophy assumes humans will not act in their own self interest...given the amount of wealth already held by the 1% could fix a lot of society's ills and don't, the assumption of donations is well, silly....as far as harming others, even when those have done wrong are caught the belief they will do the right thing, is well, silly.....good luck with that as well.....

Edited by can you hear me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

Am I understanding you correctly,(typed ideas can be taken wrong), are you saying the CEOs and "corporation"(I guess you mean stockholders) raised their income too high is the reason they couldn't compete with Mexico? The corporate taxes and regulations had no effect on the bottom line? Because that CEO said they would gladly pay the corporate tax as is, if they could roll back some of the more unreasonable regs.

Yes to a certain extent the profits/income are too high.  They don't want to compete with Mexico.  They want to use the Mexican labor force because that way their profits/income are higher.  If they use American labor, their profits/income are lower because they have to pay Americans a decent wage.  Sorry I don't trust that CEO at all.  CEO's have said in the past that if the corporate tax rate was lowered that would create jobs; unfortunately for the American worker, it didn't, it just gave the CEO's more income.

Specifically what regulations do you and/or the CEO think are unreasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, can you hear me now! said:

you have yet to identify what the regulations are that seem to be of concern...until you do, you are just quoting an individual concerned about profits, nothing else...the owner wants to operate in an unfettered manner....and as it turns out, Carrier is moving the jobs any way....

again, you automatic assumption is the government is in the wrong....you haven't provided proof....

if I recall correctly you were a Marine.....here is an example where standards were ignored....what if you had to wear the defective body armor? Would you be ok with that? Cases like this highlight why there needs to be oversight, regulations, and standards...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/pentagon-study-links-fatalities-to-body-armor.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-louise-slaughter/a-story-ignored-body-armo_b_71524.html

unfettered capitalism disguised as "free market".....remember "Greed is good"

I would call that unreasonable (the body armer). Of course I don't know every regulation he referred to. Just as you can't tell me if every one of them are reasonable. We can go back and forth forever like that. Every time I hear the "people will die if......" battle cry, I question it. You love regulation and taxes, I don't. We'll never agree. And sure we both think we are right. Right?

We can agree to disagree. We've been doing it one way forever. I'd like to try something different. I know you like to portray libertarians as "every man for himself" . Just as I didn't claim a party or vote for years, just because I relate to libertarian more than I do to the two gridlocked parties, doesen't mean I blindly fall in lockstep with any party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, can you hear me now! said:

part two of my response:

I am not belittling Libertarians, I am pointing out a specific criticism of their platform from 2016:

Libertarians have faith in the free market and believe that there’s little the government can do to pressure businesses or individuals that would be better than the power of the “Invisible Hand.”  

That means unrestricted competition among financial institutions as well as the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security and income taxes.  

The main argument is that social pressure and the free market will convince individuals and companies to donate to charity to help the less fortunate -- replacing the need for the government-run social safety-net -- or make business decisions to protect the environment in the hopes of being rewarded by the market for those efforts.  

as for individual freedom--

The idea of individual freedom defines the libertarian movement—it’s the party of limited government, in all forms.  

“We are the only political party that stands for your right to pursue happiness in any way you choose as long as you don’t hurt anyone else and as long as you don’t take their stuff,”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281399-5-things-the-libertarian-party-stands-for

as we all know, human beings are flawed and this part of the libertarian philosophy assumes humans will not act in their own self interest...given the amount of wealth already held by the 1% could fix a lot of society's ills and don't, the assumption of donations is well, silly....as far as harming others, even when those have done wrong are caught the belief they will do the right thing, is well, silly.....good luck with that as well.....

he assumption of donations is well, silly... I't has come to that because what used to be covered by churches and charities, has been replaced by forced charity. I'm short on time to cure the ills that have exploded over the last 60-80 years. But we can discuss them one by one. Goodnight my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

I would call that unreasonable (the body armer). Of course I don't know every regulation he referred to. Just as you can't tell me if every one of them are reasonable. We can go back and forth forever like that. Every time I hear the "people will die if......" battle cry, I question it. You love regulation and taxes, I don't. We'll never agree. And sure we both think we are right. Right?

We can agree to disagree. We've been doing it one way forever. I'd like to try something different. I know you like to portray libertarians as "every man for himself" . Just as I didn't claim a party or vote for years, just because I relate to libertarian more than I do to the two gridlocked parties, doesen't mean I blindly fall in lockstep with any party.

as far as the body armor is concerned, people did die.....you might want to read the articles.....I picked these articles specifically because people died...would have preferred references to the Chevy Corvair (death at any speed)...I could bring up hundreds of instances...

hate to break it to you, I am not a big fan of UNNECESSARY regulation and taxes, your wrong...

you seem to believe CEO's and shareholders are some kind of benevolent group...they aren't.....

read this: http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/

From 1978 to 2013, CEO compensation, inflation-adjusted, increased 937 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.2 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.

The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 295.9-to-1 in 2013, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.

 

also keep in mind the workers are the ones producing things of value...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mrdeltoid said:

he assumption of donations is well, silly... I't has come to that because what used to be covered by churches and charities, has been replaced by forced charity. I'm short on time to cure the ills that have exploded over the last 60-80 years. But we can discuss them one by one. Goodnight my friend.

any time.....I appreciate the exchanges....good night to you as well...

Edited by can you hear me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ms maggie said:

Distinctions? Trump tells other manufacturers to keep ops onshore. He doesn't.

Gore doesn't tell people not to fly.

It's not difficult.

LOL!  He preaches to us to use less energy, which includes flying, driving, owning a 20 room mansion with a pool burning tens of thousands of dollars in energy a year, etc.   IOW, don't act like Al Gore.  And he flies in his private jet to lecture you on your suburban lifestyle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mrdeltoid said:

he assumption of donations is well, silly... I't has come to that because what used to be covered by churches and charities, has been replaced by forced charity. I'm short on time to cure the ills that have exploded over the last 60-80 years. But we can discuss them one by one. Goodnight my friend.

"Forced charity" has existed here since the colonial era. When did churches and other charities "cover" the needs of the poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mrsmlh said:

Yes to a certain extent the profits/income are too high.  They don't want to compete with Mexico.  They want to use the Mexican labor force because that way their profits/income are higher.  If they use American labor, their profits/income are lower because they have to pay Americans a decent wage.  Sorry I don't trust that CEO at all.  CEO's have said in the past that if the corporate tax rate was lowered that would create jobs; unfortunately for the American worker, it didn't, it just gave the CEO's more income.

Specifically what regulations do you and/or the CEO think are unreasonable?

I don't know. They didn't go into detail. I know that there are special interest groups that put a lot of pressure on the gov't . That's why I used the BCo.F.D. example. The group was pressuring the county to move certain tower sites to improve the communications. It was a conservation group that didn't really want the towers in the county at all due to "migrating birds". Is there a way we can find out what reg.s he was talking about? I was told it was Carrier Can you here me now. I wonder if there is a way to find out what their regulations are? I would be curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0