Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I didn't have unrealistic expectations of his term as President...... He's done no worse than many of his predecessors... "It seems a lot of minority groups feel let down by him because they thought he was going to put things right for them, maybe even turn the tables. These fantasists should have taken note of how much Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher achieved for women's rights. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahh Barack Obama,- won the Nobel Prize for Peace after only about 3 weeks in office. He and his administration will probably be remembered for killing Osama Bin Ladin. " He didn't really have to do much to be superior to Dubya though did he? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure he really has a legacy. Not like he changed anything " actually.... he did.... on day 1! 
on day 1 he signed into law the "lily ledbetter fair pay" act
and on day 1 he made it illegal for men and women to be paid differently for the exact same job | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A good man with honest intentions, politics is not straightforward. "This....  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A good man with honest intentions, politics is not straightforward. ". He's a down to earth good man, leaps ahead of Bush.
But then scuppered by the Right Wing Republicans, preventing much of his plans. They used any tricks they could, even denying he was American for a very long time. Ruined the healthcare plans for all too, in similar fashion.
I think I'll remember his health plans most of all, achieving something other presidents didn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure he really has a legacy. Not like he changed anything " Not true at all. Obamacare for one, a pretty big thing. Just google 'Obama achievements' - there are quite a lot! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure he really has a legacy. Not like he changed anything Not true at all. Obamacare for one, a pretty big thing. Just google 'Obama achievements' - there are quite a lot!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"he has done a lot... problem is going to be you forget the first 2 years where he did a lot... for the last 6 years where the republicans have basically stopped anything of any importance being achieved " I don't think many people would claim he was rubbish, but did he live up to the hype? Do you thing those people chanting "we want change" fell they got it? I think he was overwhelmingly mediocre. But because of the hype I don't think he backed it up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think he was a bad president but.... He promised to be different and break from traditional politics!! that's where he failed. Foreign policy never changed Military industrial complex wasn't changed! Corporate tax loop holes, wasn't changed. Infrastructure bank to help rebuild America's crumbling old one... Didn't happen High ranking military personal still get jobs in government contract industries. And the lobbying system which he promised to change is still as powerful as ever. " but if you imagine a system where Cameron was PM, but there was a Labour majority... how much policy do you think would likely get thru | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think he was a bad president but.... He promised to be different and break from traditional politics!! that's where he failed. Foreign policy never changed Military industrial complex wasn't changed! Corporate tax loop holes, wasn't changed. Infrastructure bank to help rebuild America's crumbling old one... Didn't happen High ranking military personal still get jobs in government contract industries. And the lobbying system which he promised to change is still as powerful as ever. " Well that's the heart of the matter isn't it. Big talk but, for example, Guantanamo Bay is still alive, well and a disgrace to western society. Lefties love a good whip-up speech but his speeches are just a bunch of well-delivered clichés and buzz words. If you read transcripts, rather than listen to the delivery, they are dire - kind of like watching Avatar in 2D. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think he was a bad president but.... He promised to be different and break from traditional politics!! that's where he failed. Foreign policy never changed Military industrial complex wasn't changed! Corporate tax loop holes, wasn't changed. Infrastructure bank to help rebuild America's crumbling old one... Didn't happen High ranking military personal still get jobs in government contract industries. And the lobbying system which he promised to change is still as powerful as ever. but if you imagine a system where Cameron was PM, but there was a Labour majority... how much policy do you think would likely get thru" . That's the problem with American system though, and he didn't change that either! If he'd changed the actual way politics work, he would have achieved more in the long run, like I said I don't think he was bad but..... His key word was Change And I don't think anybody's really seen that fundermental change | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A good man with honest intentions, politics is not straightforward.
. He's a down to earth good man, leaps ahead of Bush.
"Well that's not saying much is it! You could achieve that by staying sober whilst on the job! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A good man with honest intentions, politics is not straightforward. "What's the road to hell paved with? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahh Barack Obama,- won the Nobel Prize for Peace after only about 3 weeks in office. He and his administration will probably be remembered for killing Osama Bin Ladin. " Bloody hell that must have been a quiet year! I know let's give it to the guy who promised to close Guantanamo Bay but won't.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A good man with honest intentions, politics is not straightforward.
. He's a down to earth good man, leaps ahead of Bush.
But then scuppered by the Right Wing Republicans, preventing much of his plans. They used any tricks they could, even denying he was American for a very long time. Ruined the healthcare plans for all too, in similar fashion.
I think I'll remember his health plans most of all, achieving something other presidents didn't."I concur. Healthcare and the Fair Pay Act are policies that have at least the chance of making a difference. (Reality is harder to achieve on equal pay, as we know from having one for 40 years here but it was shameful that the American didn't even have it as a legal expectation.) I'll also remember his ability to lampoon himself and the interview with David Attenborough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush "He's done his maximum two terms. Michelle in four years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
"Fair play if she does I do think they need a female president | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
Fair play if she does I do think they need a female president "You were a fan of thatcher then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With America getting stirred up about next year's election, how will you remember Obama? He came to power with high expectations and remember those "Yes we can" chants? So did he or did "Yes we can" become "oh no you didn't"? " He reminds me a lot of Tony Blair. Nice smile, nothing delivered. From what Ive read, the biggest improvement in his Presidency has been his golf handicap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the Obama presidency will be remembered as much for the bat-shit-crazy Republican obstruction as for anything Obama has done. " I think this is what will eventually be the epitaph... and whoever gets in next will have the same problem.... if you don't think much gets done now... if it is a democrat (hillary) you will see no change..... if it is a republican, you can see the democrats taking their revenge.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the Obama presidency will be remembered as much for the bat-shit-crazy Republican obstruction as for anything Obama has done. I think this is what will eventually be the epitaph... and whoever gets in next will have the same problem.... if you don't think much gets done now... if it is a democrat (hillary) you will see no change..... if it is a republican, you can see the democrats taking their revenge...." Depending on the situation at the time of the election there's every chance the Democrats could take both houses of congress in 2016. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
Fair play if she does I do think they need a female president
You were a fan of thatcher then? "I don't know I wasn't old enough to remember her but from what I learnt over the years she did good and bad things for this country the same as any prime minister or president regardless if they were male or female but to judge that every woman leader will be another thatcher is a bit silly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
Fair play if she does I do think they need a female president
You were a fan of thatcher then?
I don't know I wasn't old enough to remember her but from what I learnt over the years she did good and bad things for this country the same as any prime minister or president regardless if they were male or female but to judge that every woman leader will be another thatcher is a bit silly. "I'm not old enough to remember I should say | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love Obama. Just compare him to his lunatic predecessor. Obamacare is HUGE, anyone notice that gay people can now be married in every state? And he's been up against a losing system, and he's been up against some pretty extreme racism from people in congress. He can't change everything, the changes he has achieved are significant. I genuinely thought he would be shot upon his election, but he got re-elected. " Actually, I thought he might he might face a public assasination attempt and have been glad to see it did not come to pass. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A good man with honest intentions, politics is not straightforward. "agree i would buy him a pint if i saw him out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont know much about US politics, but I don't like the trade deal he is trying to inflict on us. TTIP is a monster in disguise. Google it and see what it means for people's rights. Corporations will have the power to dictate the law. "Now if I were a Tory, I'd be calling you anti-business, anti-aspiration and getting a long list of business owners to write a letter to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
Fair play if she does I do think they need a female president
You were a fan of thatcher then? "Totalconfusion.com | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
Fair play if she does I do think they need a female president
You were a fan of thatcher then?
I don't know I wasn't old enough to remember her but from what I learnt over the years she did good and bad things for this country the same as any prime minister or president regardless if they were male or female but to judge that every woman leader will be another thatcher is a bit silly. "Just exploring whether you genuinely think the gender of a politician makes much difference to their actions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" anyone notice that gay people can now be married in every state? " Yes it's good he focused on the most pressing issues. I mean the state can take you, without charge, and hold you indefeniately in Cuba, not to mention the orange jump suits in baking heat - but thank fuck he had time to sort out gay marriage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
Fair play if she does I do think they need a female president
You were a fan of thatcher then?
I don't know I wasn't old enough to remember her but from what I learnt over the years she did good and bad things for this country the same as any prime minister or president regardless if they were male or female but to judge that every woman leader will be another thatcher is a bit silly.
Just exploring whether you genuinely think the gender of a politician makes much difference to their actions"I don't believe so as a lot of women can think like men and country leadership has been a prodomatly man's world. I just think the U.S. would benefit from having a female president as it's never had one. I do think women can make good leaders. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. " I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is going to stand for election next year or can you only do so many terms? I remember I was still married and living on a U.S. army base when he came into power I thought he would be good for the U.S. as I wasn't keen on Bush
He's done his maximum two terms.
Michelle in four years?
Fair play if she does I do think they need a female president
You were a fan of thatcher then?
I don't know I wasn't old enough to remember her but from what I learnt over the years she did good and bad things for this country the same as any prime minister or president regardless if they were male or female but to judge that every woman leader will be another thatcher is a bit silly.
Just exploring whether you genuinely think the gender of a politician makes much difference to their actions
I don't believe so as a lot of women can think like men and country leadership has been a prodomatly man's world. I just think the U.S. would benefit from having a female president as it's never had one. I do think women can make good leaders. "Errr right so do I. That's kind of why the idea is to look past the features people were born with and judge them on the content of their character. I think America needs the best leader it can get - irrespective of whether they are male or female | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. " Of course real progress is doing away with obsolete labels you inherit at birth (i.e white, black) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Of course real progress is doing away with obsolete labels you inherit at birth (i.e white, black) " Yeah go down to Charleston and tell them that their problem is that they just need to get rid of their blackness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Of course real progress is doing away with obsolete labels you inherit at birth (i.e white, black) " It would be but we are not there yet. Race and gender politics are not at that level of maturity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I genuinely thought he would be shot upon his election, but he got re-elected. " So did I! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. " not really that true..... in previous elections black people voted 85-15 in favour of the democrats.... under obama that shifted to 95-5.... the thing is more black person were registered to voted in the Obama Elections since Bill Clinton (there is a reason why he is ironically sometimes called the first black president) and there were more your people registered to vote in the Obama Elections.... and the reasons why a lot of republican controlled states are making voting registrations applications stricter and harder to stop these people from voting... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Of course real progress is doing away with obsolete labels you inherit at birth (i.e white, black) It would be but we are not there yet. Race and gender politics are not at that level of maturity. " Not in politics (pity) but other walks of life they are. I'd say some sports and some industries in business are streets ahead of politics for genuine equality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. " Now, now...you know it's only people of colour that vote for their own!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Of course real progress is doing away with obsolete labels you inherit at birth (i.e white, black) It would be but we are not there yet. Race and gender politics are not at that level of maturity. Not in politics (pity) but other walks of life they are. I'd say some sports and some industries in business are streets ahead of politics for genuine equality. " Some but not as many as are needed to make a difference to everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Now, now...you know it's only people of colour that vote for their own! "Yeah like the British public who voted for a working class woman - 3 times | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Now, now...you know it's only people of colour that vote for their own! "Silly me. Of course the real change was that they had someone of colour to vote for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Of course real progress is doing away with obsolete labels you inherit at birth (i.e white, black) It would be but we are not there yet. Race and gender politics are not at that level of maturity. Not in politics (pity) but other walks of life they are. I'd say some sports and some industries in business are streets ahead of politics for genuine equality. Some but not as many as are needed to make a difference to everyone." Well there's always room for improvement but politics could catch up a little bit before assuming the moral high ground on the matter! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think he was a bad president but.... He promised to be different and break from traditional politics!! that's where he failed. Foreign policy never changed Military industrial complex wasn't changed! Corporate tax loop holes, wasn't changed. Infrastructure bank to help rebuild America's crumbling old one... Didn't happen High ranking military personal still get jobs in government contract industries. And the lobbying system which he promised to change is still as powerful as ever. but if you imagine a system where Cameron was PM, but there was a Labour majority... how much policy do you think would likely get thru" See this is the part that baffles me, - you vote in a particular party & the opposition party are hell bent on blocking everything that you want to change, even obamacare, "healthcare for all Americans" the Republicans thought against, - what does that say about those assholes? It seems that the home of democracy is more like a semi Republican dictatorship, - a kind of House of Lords on steroids! People on here saying that he didn't achieve anything seem to be more than a little lost imo. Another massive achievement was not sending America in to another war(that's saved us tens of billions for starters), although he was presented with two unfinished wars from the war mongering Republicans! I don't see what he could have done better, but I'd love to have seen his achievements without his hands tied behind his back! Also I agree with a couple of previous posts, - I too thought he would be assassinated by a 'mad non-politial' citizen; Maybe if there wasn't the same Republican numbers holding him back, he would have been!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. not really that true..... in previous elections black people voted 85-15 in favour of the democrats.... under obama that shifted to 95-5.... the thing is more black person were registered to voted in the Obama Elections since Bill Clinton (there is a reason why he is ironically sometimes called the first black president) and there were more your people registered to vote in the Obama Elections.... and the reasons why a lot of republican controlled states are making voting registrations applications stricter and harder to stop these people from voting..." That's one aspect of the "land of the free" I find interesting and troubling. For a country that fought to vote and have elected representation it seems to try really hard to stop people exercising that right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Of course real progress is doing away with obsolete labels you inherit at birth (i.e white, black) It would be but we are not there yet. Race and gender politics are not at that level of maturity. Not in politics (pity) but other walks of life they are. I'd say some sports and some industries in business are streets ahead of politics for genuine equality. Some but not as many as are needed to make a difference to everyone. Well there's always room for improvement but politics could catch up a little bit before assuming the moral high ground on the matter! " I don't politics has the moral high ground on this, least of all in America. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. " this.. given the track record of the Republican party and how they treat none white people its hardly rocket science that many of the democratic aligned voters went with Obama.. he was hindered i would suggest as equally due to the colour of his skin as well as his policies he tried to implement.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has given the go ahead for more drone strikes than bush ever did and the poor of america are poorer while the rich are richer so to sum it up hes just like any other politician" Although not every politician promises to be different and deliver change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has given the go ahead for more drone strikes than bush ever did and the poor of america are poorer while the rich are richer so to sum it up hes just like any other politician Although not every politician promises to be different and deliver change. " & in not every country in the world the non elected loser opposition can block or at the very least slow everything you try to change! An unbelievably crooked system! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. this.. given the track record of the Republican party and how they treat none white people its hardly rocket science that many of the democratic aligned voters went with Obama.. he was hindered i would suggest as equally due to the colour of his skin as well as his policies he tried to implement.. " Let's not overlook that Obama is ad capable of the look and manners of the Patrician as any neo con. To alot of US voters he can come across as high handed and arrogant, Cavalier even. Sometimes it looks as though his election message of 'hope' was a very cleverly contrived ploy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"what a lot of ppl dont realise is that no matter who is president be it male or female . one of the most powerful organasations in the usa it the national gun lobby. they contribute millions of dollars evey election time to try get their man in the white house !" Absolutely, - & there's plenty of Republicans with zillion dollar shares in that Mega industry!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love Obama. Just compare him to his lunatic predecessor. Obamacare is HUGE, anyone notice that gay people can now be married in every state? And he's been up against a losing system, and he's been up against some pretty extreme racism from people in congress. He can't change everything, the changes he has achieved are significant. I genuinely thought he would be shot upon his election, but he got re-elected. " . I think the right not to get fired from your job for being gay, which is the case in over half the American states would have come before some bleeding marriage bollocks... But like I said that's what obamas term has been about.. looking like he lived up to his promises but actually failing badly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"what a lot of ppl dont realise is that no matter who is president be it male or female . one of the most powerful organasations in the usa it the national gun lobby. they contribute millions of dollars evey election time to try get their man in the white house ! Absolutely, - & there's plenty of Republicans with zillion dollar shares in that Mega industry!!" . Deviating a little I started a thread on Bernie sanders and that's my point on sanders thread, he's the very first person to campaign on the truth of the issues... And that is we no longer have a democracy and who you vote for means very little in today's world.... That's born out from figures. 80% of Americans want to see the minimum wage rise to 14 dollars 90% want to see some form of gun control. 74% want universal healthcare. 68% want tax increases for billionaires and massive conglomerates But what do they get? Nothing Even obama care when striped to it's bare essentials is actually a massive scam for huge insurance firms,... Anyone care to see how much there profits have jumped this year! Or how much there policies have gone up by.... Try 300% increases.... That's fucking madness, they've got millions and millions of unemployed people that could be building hospitals and medical labs and making real proper jobs, they've pumped fucking trillions into bailing out billionaires but no.. Putting some of that trillions into a well run (not for profit) healthcare system for every citizen is beyond the current way politics works.... Because politics is run by big business for big business... That's why we can't get off the petroleum merry go round! Tackle climate change Or pointless wars Or reverse this perverse wealth grab from the working class to the 0.01% Or free education for all Or even this dilemma we see today with immigration from economic depravity.... We can't stop or even begin to fix any of these issues because in reality everything done by governments today is done for profit!! And don't confuse economic activity with vast profits.... The last ten years has seen vast profits with very little economic gain for the 99.9% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 90% want to see some form of gun control. " Yes bit that's a very misleading figure. Americans are noticeably better at understanding political momentum. Most the pro-gun lobby understands that as soon as the principle is accepted that some guns get banned, then that principles will get expanded and expanded over time so better to kill it before it starts. It's predictable irrationality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 90% want to see some form of gun control. Yes bit that's a very misleading figure. Americans are noticeably better at understanding political momentum. Most the pro-gun lobby understands that as soon as the principle is accepted that some guns get banned, then that principles will get expanded and expanded over time so better to kill it before it starts. It's predictable irrationality. " . They were asked a simple question Would you like to see some form of gun control. 90% said yes That's not misleading that's basic what do you want questions! The answer could have been more background checks, better security in where there kept, longer wait times in applying and receiving your gun, banning assault rifles, handguns.... Who knows what the form of gun control would have been, the point is they got nothing, they didn't even get to debate it, because a very small percentage didn't want it? And that's not democracy It's an oligarchic system run by the plutocratic! If you want that fine, but at least let's be honest about it Why waste millions and millions of dollars and man hours on bullshit elections that in reality mean fuck all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 90% want to see some form of gun control. Yes bit that's a very misleading figure. Americans are noticeably better at understanding political momentum. Most the pro-gun lobby understands that as soon as the principle is accepted that some guns get banned, then that principles will get expanded and expanded over time so better to kill it before it starts. It's predictable irrationality. . They were asked a simple question Would you like to see some form of gun control. 90% said yes That's not misleading that's basic what do you want questions! The answer could have been more background checks, better security in where there kept, longer wait times in applying and receiving your gun, banning assault rifles, handguns.... Who knows what the form of gun control would have been, the point is they got nothing, they didn't even get to debate it, because a very small percentage didn't want it? And that's not democracy It's an oligarchic system run by the plutocratic! If you want that fine, but at least let's be honest about it Why waste millions and millions of dollars and man hours on bullshit elections that in reality mean fuck all" But the problem is they can't agree what form of gun control they want. It's implying 90% agree and democracy is supposed to do what the 50%+ agree on but the 90% don't agree. It's like in this country, 100% of voters want a 'fair' tax system but nobody can agree what a 'fair' tax system is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 90% want to see some form of gun control. Yes bit that's a very misleading figure. Americans are noticeably better at understanding political momentum. Most the pro-gun lobby understands that as soon as the principle is accepted that some guns get banned, then that principles will get expanded and expanded over time so better to kill it before it starts. It's predictable irrationality. . They were asked a simple question Would you like to see some form of gun control. 90% said yes That's not misleading that's basic what do you want questions! The answer could have been more background checks, better security in where there kept, longer wait times in applying and receiving your gun, banning assault rifles, handguns.... Who knows what the form of gun control would have been, the point is they got nothing, they didn't even get to debate it, because a very small percentage didn't want it? And that's not democracy It's an oligarchic system run by the plutocratic! If you want that fine, but at least let's be honest about it Why waste millions and millions of dollars and man hours on bullshit elections that in reality mean fuck all But the problem is they can't agree what form of gun control they want. It's implying 90% agree and democracy is supposed to do what the 50%+ agree on but the 90% don't agree. It's like in this country, 100% of voters want a 'fair' tax system but nobody can agree what a 'fair' tax system is" . That's the whole point..... We can agree on what's fair! Nearly everybody thinks that if you earn a million dollars a year, you can afford to pay half a million in tax. But they don't! And don't take my word for it Warren buffet stated publicly his tax bracket is effectively less than his secretaries! I note he didn't say how much less than his secretaries.... It could have been 25% as his secretary is paying 26% but it could be 20% or 10% or 0%. We nearly all agree that companies earning billions in profit should pay a decent proportion of it in tax... But ever year there CT gets put down while mine goes up Exon made 20 billion dollars profit in the US paid no tax at all and got a tax rebate of 150 million dollars from the tax payer What the fuck percentage thinks that's fair and who the fuck running the country thinks that's good for the people!. The issue is not the policies though! It's the ability of the 1% to control the 99% And let's be honest.... I'm not even that happy being controlled by the majority, I don't think it's that great of an idea! But it is meant to be the system we run under! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 90% want to see some form of gun control. Yes bit that's a very misleading figure. Americans are noticeably better at understanding political momentum. Most the pro-gun lobby understands that as soon as the principle is accepted that some guns get banned, then that principles will get expanded and expanded over time so better to kill it before it starts. It's predictable irrationality. . They were asked a simple question Would you like to see some form of gun control. 90% said yes That's not misleading that's basic what do you want questions! The answer could have been more background checks, better security in where there kept, longer wait times in applying and receiving your gun, banning assault rifles, handguns.... Who knows what the form of gun control would have been, the point is they got nothing, they didn't even get to debate it, because a very small percentage didn't want it? And that's not democracy It's an oligarchic system run by the plutocratic! If you want that fine, but at least let's be honest about it Why waste millions and millions of dollars and man hours on bullshit elections that in reality mean fuck all But the problem is they can't agree what form of gun control they want. It's implying 90% agree and democracy is supposed to do what the 50%+ agree on but the 90% don't agree. It's like in this country, 100% of voters want a 'fair' tax system but nobody can agree what a 'fair' tax system is. That's the whole point..... We can agree on what's fair! Nearly everybody thinks that if you earn a million dollars a year, you can afford to pay half a million in tax. But they don't! And don't take my word for it Warren buffet stated publicly his tax bracket is effectively less than his secretaries! I note he didn't say how much less than his secretaries.... It could have been 25% as his secretary is paying 26% but it could be 20% or 10% or 0%. We nearly all agree that companies earning billions in profit should pay a decent proportion of it in tax... But ever year there CT gets put down while mine goes up Exon made 20 billion dollars profit in the US paid no tax at all and got a tax rebate of 150 million dollars from the tax payer What the fuck percentage thinks that's fair and who the fuck running the country thinks that's good for the people!. The issue is not the policies though! It's the ability of the 1% to control the 99% And let's be honest.... I'm not even that happy being controlled by the majority, I don't think it's that great of an idea! But it is meant to be the system we run under! " Right, well sounds like a bit of a crisis then, doesnt it? What's the solution? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" anyone notice that gay people can now be married in every state? Yes it's good he focused on the most pressing issues. I mean the state can take you, without charge, and hold you indefeniately in Cuba, not to mention the orange jump suits in baking heat - but thank fuck he had time to sort out gay marriage" Way to point out how little equality matters to you. Why would you even care that people get put in orange jump suits (gasp) if you don't give a shit about their most basic everyday rights? All of what you mentioned was, of course, all Obamas idea and sole responsibility. Right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. " And that isn't a good enough reason? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" anyone notice that gay people can now be married in every state? Yes it's good he focused on the most pressing issues. I mean the state can take you, without charge, and hold you indefeniately in Cuba, not to mention the orange jump suits in baking heat - but thank fuck he had time to sort out gay marriage Way to point out how little equality matters to you. Why would you even care that people get put in orange jump suits (gasp) if you don't give a shit about their most basic everyday rights? All of what you mentioned was, of course, all Obamas idea and sole responsibility. Right? " Yeah because the right to a fair trial isn't an everyday right is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is much better than Bush (doesnt say much) and alot worse than Clinton. Next will be Hillary, hopefully not Trump and the roadkill on his head. Obama's legacy will be killing Bin Laden and his dumbass health care bullshit" Although Clinton did sign the Financial Services Modernization Act which was pretty helpful in laying the groundwork for the 2008 financial crisis | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" hopefully not Trump and the roadkill on his head." I really hope someone in security stops him and says "sorry sir but no pets allowed in here" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" anyone notice that gay people can now be married in every state? Yes it's good he focused on the most pressing issues. I mean the state can take you, without charge, and hold you indefeniately in Cuba, not to mention the orange jump suits in baking heat - but thank fuck he had time to sort out gay marriage Way to point out how little equality matters to you. Why would you even care that people get put in orange jump suits (gasp) if you don't give a shit about their most basic everyday rights? All of what you mentioned was, of course, all Obamas idea and sole responsibility. Right? Yeah because the right to a fair trial isn't an everyday right is it? " imagine having one less right than that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure he really has a legacy. Not like he changed anything actually.... he did.... on day 1!
on day 1 he signed into law the "lily ledbetter fair pay" act
and on day 1 he made it illegal for men and women to be paid differently for the exact same job"Wait how does that work for roles where pay is negotiated where two men might have different pay for the exact same job | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 90% want to see some form of gun control. Yes bit that's a very misleading figure. Americans are noticeably better at understanding political momentum. Most the pro-gun lobby understands that as soon as the principle is accepted that some guns get banned, then that principles will get expanded and expanded over time so better to kill it before it starts. It's predictable irrationality. . They were asked a simple question Would you like to see some form of gun control. 90% said yes That's not misleading that's basic what do you want questions! The answer could have been more background checks, better security in where there kept, longer wait times in applying and receiving your gun, banning assault rifles, handguns.... Who knows what the form of gun control would have been, the point is they got nothing, they didn't even get to debate it, because a very small percentage didn't want it? And that's not democracy It's an oligarchic system run by the plutocratic! If you want that fine, but at least let's be honest about it Why waste millions and millions of dollars and man hours on bullshit elections that in reality mean fuck all But the problem is they can't agree what form of gun control they want. It's implying 90% agree and democracy is supposed to do what the 50%+ agree on but the 90% don't agree. It's like in this country, 100% of voters want a 'fair' tax system but nobody can agree what a 'fair' tax system is. That's the whole point..... We can agree on what's fair! Nearly everybody thinks that if you earn a million dollars a year, you can afford to pay half a million in tax. But they don't! And don't take my word for it Warren buffet stated publicly his tax bracket is effectively less than his secretaries! I note he didn't say how much less than his secretaries.... It could have been 25% as his secretary is paying 26% but it could be 20% or 10% or 0%. We nearly all agree that companies earning billions in profit should pay a decent proportion of it in tax... But ever year there CT gets put down while mine goes up Exon made 20 billion dollars profit in the US paid no tax at all and got a tax rebate of 150 million dollars from the tax payer What the fuck percentage thinks that's fair and who the fuck running the country thinks that's good for the people!. The issue is not the policies though! It's the ability of the 1% to control the 99% And let's be honest.... I'm not even that happy being controlled by the majority, I don't think it's that great of an idea! But it is meant to be the system we run under! Right, well sounds like a bit of a crisis then, doesnt it? What's the solution? " . I'm glad you asked! I'd start with abolishing the movement of civil service/politicans to private companies for at least ten years preferably 20 you'd obviously have to limit that to companies that have dealings with government! Completely open transparent recordings of every single minute of every government meeting within 5 years and only kept beyond that by court order! Maximum donation to any political party of no more than 200 pound/dollars by any individual in one year. Put a maximum celling on party spending of no more than 250k per year. And in reality the true measure would be actually jailing the people we've already caught breaking and bending every rule. There's no point spending millions on the Levinson enquiry and then only giving the odd person a suspended sentence or 6 months... These people need five years, we've all seen the reality of what Rupert Murdoch was upto in controlling our government, it's perfectly clear what he was doing, why the fuck is the man and his son not in prison! What message has that sent out to the next billionaire who wishes to bribe/steal/influence OUR government with illegal activity... Yeah help yourself the worst that can happen is a pie in your face | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But no offence, that 1% stuff is bollocks. People like Warren Buffet are more concerned with finding ways to donate their wealth to charity wisely than using it to control the masses... " What I find irritating is the whole 1% stuff started with a report from oxfam a "charity" run by very highly paid individuals (most would fall into their own definition of the 1%) and is an organisation that refuses to help or provide services to male rape victims across Africa as it doesn't look good for the sponsors who want to be seen helping vulnerable women... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But no offence, that 1% stuff is bollocks. People like Warren Buffet are more concerned with finding ways to donate their wealth to charity wisely than using it to control the masses... What I find irritating is the whole 1% stuff started with a report from oxfam a "charity" run by very highly paid individuals (most would fall into their own definition of the 1%) and is an organisation that refuses to help or provide services to male rape victims across Africa as it doesn't look good for the sponsors who want to be seen helping vulnerable women..." Well put. The gates foundation is doing far more than other charities who are more concerned with public image. That's the entrapreneurs, as for the "political class" - I do have occasion to interact with some of them during my job and the simple truth is these guys ain't smart enough to organise some sort of mass conspiracy! Who was it that said "the best minds are not in government" - oh yeah that was Ronald Reagan | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But no offence, that 1% stuff is bollocks. People like Warren Buffet are more concerned with finding ways to donate their wealth to charity wisely than using it to control the masses... What I find irritating is the whole 1% stuff started with a report from oxfam a "charity" run by very highly paid individuals (most would fall into their own definition of the 1%) and is an organisation that refuses to help or provide services to male rape victims across Africa as it doesn't look good for the sponsors who want to be seen helping vulnerable women... Well put. The gates foundation is doing far more than other charities who are more concerned with public image. That's the entrapreneurs, as for the "political class" - I do have occasion to interact with some of them during my job and the simple truth is these guys ain't smart enough to organise some sort of mass conspiracy! Who was it that said "the best minds are not in government" - oh yeah that was Ronald Reagan" Yeah everyone loves to hate the gates foundation as it will invest to maximise profit to provide more funding for their incredibly expensive (and very worthwile) medical research programs. But people don't think a charity should invest in funds which aren't all goody two shoes wishy washy low return cap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Now, now...you know it's only people of colour that vote for their own!
Yeah like the British public who voted for a working class woman - 3 times "When did this happen? I know the British public voted for an upper class power crazed lunatic woman 3 times. Other opinions are available | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proof whether you like my comment or not that black people voted for him simply because he was black. I think that is true of some and not of others. For a country that has been through so much, and continues to struggle with race relations black people voting for a black man is significant. The fact that it's no different for a wealthy white people voting for wealthy white men doesn't get mentioned, of course. Now, now...you know it's only people of colour that vote for their own!
Yeah like the British public who voted for a working class woman - 3 times
When did this happen? I know the British public voted for an upper class power crazed lunatic woman 3 times.
Other opinions are available "Errr her father was a green grocer - hardly high society! No offence to all the green grocers daughters out there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But no offence, that 1% stuff is bollocks. People like Warren Buffet are more concerned with finding ways to donate their wealth to charity wisely than using it to control the masses... " . You say that with what evidence! Now I'm not trying to demonize Mr buffet, quite frankly I don't know him and neither do you. However what we can examine is the data that shows that wealth is accumulating with the very top faster than ever!, in fact were actually back to 1850 in the wealth disparity!, is that progress?. And what we can also examine is that in the last 40 years since Thatcher and Reagan's revolution we can see that the very very wealthiest peoples tax have reduced by 50% while the working classes (everybody else who works but earns less than 500k) there tax take has increased by 22% Direct tax may have come down but if you look at indirect spending and taxs on these you can see that the overhaul tax is up on this group. This gets back to my point that democracy is not working as the wealthiest are able to put their needs before the majority's needs. As a rule people always use warren buffet or bill gates as the (lovely billionaire with his lovely charity work)... That's great, I'm happy there charitable but... The masses should never have to rely on charity from the 0.01% , it leads to a dysfunctional relationship between the two, just change the system that stops the wealth accruing to the very top. And you have the other end of the spectrum billionaires like the koch brothers, they've spent hundreds of millions pushing disinformation on climate change alone, and they've spent billions trying to influence us politics(they funded the start of the tea party) and that alone has dragged the entire political system there to the right!... You tell me...Is that the wishes of the majority or the minority! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But no offence, that 1% stuff is bollocks. People like Warren Buffet are more concerned with finding ways to donate their wealth to charity wisely than using it to control the masses... What I find irritating is the whole 1% stuff started with a report from oxfam a "charity" run by very highly paid individuals (most would fall into their own definition of the 1%) and is an organisation that refuses to help or provide services to male rape victims across Africa as it doesn't look good for the sponsors who want to be seen helping vulnerable women... Well put. The gates foundation is doing far more than other charities who are more concerned with public image. That's the entrapreneurs, as for the "political class" - I do have occasion to interact with some of them during my job and the simple truth is these guys ain't smart enough to organise some sort of mass conspiracy! Who was it that said "the best minds are not in government" - oh yeah that was Ronald Reagan" . How apt is that, Reagan was the least bright president for a generation! He was the archetypal puppet idiot for the masses to whoop at!... You wonder where Boris Johnson gets his ideas from? Anyhow why would you expect these super bright people in government, it's not really that hard a job... It's certainly not brain surgery or complicated chemistry, most of the clever stuff is done by some super clever people behind the scenes, all the politicans have to do is look at the data and see how it's best to effect change for everyone, they certainly don't have to think of solutions to problems, that's always done by some bright spark you've never heard of! Anyhow I'll try and answer your original assertion about oxfam Firstly your wrong it's not 1% that are accruing the wealth it's the 0.01% and in terms of the billionaires who are actually unduly influencing politics, as that's what we're actually talking about it's the 0.0001%. Oxfams study was a more general concept of the disparity between first world and third world, that's why they used the 1% figure! Secondly gates charity work does do marvellous things, nobody ever said it didn't (I presumed you dragged this in as the "hey stop criticisms of wealthy people, look what this wealthy guy is doing") It's a completely irrelevant thing, were talking about how better to advance human living standards, that's like saying give all your money to one guy and rely on his charity! It's nonsensical because in reality I'm talking about how to better to distribute wealth so he doesn't have to be charitable... You get that point don't you! The system is creating not only his wealth but the poverty needed for his charity! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But no offence, that 1% stuff is bollocks. People like Warren Buffet are more concerned with finding ways to donate their wealth to charity wisely than using it to control the masses... . You say that with what evidence! Now I'm not trying to demonize Mr buffet, quite frankly I don't know him and neither do you. However what we can examine is the data that shows that wealth is accumulating with the very top faster than ever!, in fact were actually back to 1850 in the wealth disparity!, is that progress?. And what we can also examine is that in the last 40 years since Thatcher and Reagan's revolution we can see that the very very wealthiest peoples tax have reduced by 50% while the working classes (everybody else who works but earns less than 500k) there tax take has increased by 22% Direct tax may have come down but if you look at indirect spending and taxs on these you can see that the overhaul tax is up on this group. This gets back to my point that democracy is not working as the wealthiest are able to put their needs before the majority's needs. As a rule people always use warren buffet or bill gates as the (lovely billionaire with his lovely charity work)... That's great, I'm happy there charitable but... The masses should never have to rely on charity from the 0.01% , it leads to a dysfunctional relationship between the two, just change the system that stops the wealth accruing to the very top. And you have the other end of the spectrum billionaires like the koch brothers, they've spent hundreds of millions pushing disinformation on climate change alone, and they've spent billions trying to influence us politics(they funded the start of the tea party) and that alone has dragged the entire political system there to the right!... You tell me...Is that the wishes of the majority or the minority! " Well let's start with the fact that none of the figures you are referencing are from studies that control for who holds the wealth. In other words, you're assuming the top 1% in 1980's are the same people as the top 1% now, some are but normally they ain't! The top income bracket is more a phase of life than it is a group of people. Broadly speaking, people get richer as they get older. That is to say that young people at the bottom of the career ladder, having just taken on a big f-off mortgage and with 2.4 children are much poorer than their parents who have paid off said mortgage, have no dependent children and aren't at the bottom of the career ladder. Control for that and your 1% evaporates with a few exceptions like the rockefellers who are as common as warren buffet. Or for more on this subject read Thomas sowell, basic economics fourth edition (misleading title, it's not basic at all) No offence but lefties see the world the way they want to, selectively picking figures that intuitively support pre-defined views. So do right wing people but I'm proud to be neither. Economics is anything but intuitive and frankly lefties (and right wing) people make terrible economists. That's not my opinion, that's the conclusion of a study you can read yourself by Philip E. Tetlock at the university of Pennsylvania so if you don't like the conclusion please argue with him because I have given up on trying to have rational debates with lefties. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But no offence, that 1% stuff is bollocks. People like Warren Buffet are more concerned with finding ways to donate their wealth to charity wisely than using it to control the masses... . You say that with what evidence! Now I'm not trying to demonize Mr buffet, quite frankly I don't know him and neither do you. However what we can examine is the data that shows that wealth is accumulating with the very top faster than ever!, in fact were actually back to 1850 in the wealth disparity!, is that progress?. And what we can also examine is that in the last 40 years since Thatcher and Reagan's revolution we can see that the very very wealthiest peoples tax have reduced by 50% while the working classes (everybody else who works but earns less than 500k) there tax take has increased by 22% Direct tax may have come down but if you look at indirect spending and taxs on these you can see that the overhaul tax is up on this group. This gets back to my point that democracy is not working as the wealthiest are able to put their needs before the majority's needs. As a rule people always use warren buffet or bill gates as the (lovely billionaire with his lovely charity work)... That's great, I'm happy there charitable but... The masses should never have to rely on charity from the 0.01% , it leads to a dysfunctional relationship between the two, just change the system that stops the wealth accruing to the very top. And you have the other end of the spectrum billionaires like the koch brothers, they've spent hundreds of millions pushing disinformation on climate change alone, and they've spent billions trying to influence us politics(they funded the start of the tea party) and that alone has dragged the entire political system there to the right!... You tell me...Is that the wishes of the majority or the minority! Well let's start with the fact that none of the figures you are referencing are from studies that control for who holds the wealth. In other words, you're assuming the top 1% in 1980's are the same people as the top 1% now, some are but normally they ain't! The top income bracket is more a phase of life than it is a group of people. Broadly speaking, people get richer as they get older. That is to say that young people at the bottom of the career ladder, having just taken on a big f-off mortgage and with 2.4 children are much poorer than their parents who have paid off said mortgage, have no dependent children and aren't at the bottom of the career ladder. Control for that and your 1% evaporates with a few exceptions like the rockefellers who are as common as warren buffet. Or for more on this subject read Thomas sowell, basic economics fourth edition (misleading title, it's not basic at all) No offence but lefties see the world the way they want to, selectively picking figures that intuitively support pre-defined views. So do right wing people but I'm proud to be neither. Economics is anything but intuitive and frankly lefties (and right wing) people make terrible economists. That's not my opinion, that's the conclusion of a study you can read yourself by Philip E. Tetlock at the university of Pennsylvania so if you don't like the conclusion please argue with him because I have given up on trying to have rational debates with lefties. " . Your making the most common basic error in presuming it's a conspiracy among a few men in a room with perpetual wealth! That's not how capitalism works you don't need continuity between wealthy people, it corrupts as it goes! Bill gates is just as likely to be the next Rockefeller as Richard branson is! I'm sorry you dislike leftist people, I don't know what happened in your like to cause it, however while reading your economists books you could try reading Thomas pikettys book capital in the 21st century, it's been widely regarded by other economists as one of the greatest compilations of data for years. He boiled it down to a simple equation the rate of return on capital (r) to the rate of economic growth (g), where r includes profits, dividends, interest, ren and other income from capital and g is measured in income or output. He argues that, when the rate of growth is low, then wealth tends to accumulate more quickly from r than from labour and tends to accumulate more among the top decile and centile, increasing inequality. Just try to get past his obvious leftist ideas and look at the data | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sorry you dislike leftist people, I don't know what happened in your like to cause it" Oh it's not just lefties, I explicitly stated far right people are just as bad. I just dislike anyone: 1) who holds strong politics views but can't be arsed to read history Or 2) holds strong political views, has read history and still thinks new government policies are the answer to modern problems. Historically speaking, no organisation has killed more people than the modern state, left wing ones especially btw - despite the fact that it's first duty is to protect its people. How can one have faith in an organisation like that! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) " . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me  .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it"Well I've downloaded the book so I'll give it a spin but seriously check out Thomas sowell's basic economics too. I'm not defender of the right either. Lefties just get up my nose more because of the general smugness and presumption of occupying the high moral ground. Personally I don't see anything moral or progressive about bankrupting a population or mass murder (french revolution, soviet union, pol pot, chairman mao, North Korea and lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a socialist too) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sorry you dislike leftist people, I don't know what happened in your like to cause it Oh it's not just lefties, I explicitly stated far right people are just as bad. I just dislike anyone: 1) who holds strong politics views but can't be arsed to read history Or 2) holds strong political views, has read history and still thinks new government policies are the answer to modern problems. Historically speaking, no organisation has killed more people than the modern state, left wing ones especially btw - despite the fact that it's first duty is to protect its people. How can one have faith in an organisation like that! " . Ahh the solution to modern problems.... Capitalism certainly doesn't have them though does it, it's created nearly all the problems in the first place! While your reading though history, and blaming leftism... Your missing the bit of history that created leftism! Let them eat cake! There's no point in denying people are inheritably capable of evil and doing evil deeds, be they of left or right! then surely the answer is to give them least opportunity to do it. Completely open and free government designed to best represent all is surely the best way forward? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sorry you dislike leftist people, I don't know what happened in your like to cause it Oh it's not just lefties, I explicitly stated far right people are just as bad. I just dislike anyone: 1) who holds strong politics views but can't be arsed to read history Or 2) holds strong political views, has read history and still thinks new government policies are the answer to modern problems. Historically speaking, no organisation has killed more people than the modern state, left wing ones especially btw - despite the fact that it's first duty is to protect its people. How can one have faith in an organisation like that! . Ahh the solution to modern problems.... Capitalism certainly doesn't have them though does it, it's created nearly all the problems in the first place! While your reading though history, and blaming leftism... Your missing the bit of history that created leftism! Let them eat cake! There's no point in denying people are inheritably capable of evil and doing evil deeds, be they of left or right! then surely the answer is to give them least opportunity to do it. Completely open and free government designed to best represent all is surely the best way forward?" Capitalism is the worst system except for all the other ones we've tried. I don't want a radically different system, a smaller government, better regulation of markets that need regulating etc. As I see it, it's not so much the system that is broken, it's just operated in quite a sloppy manner. Although party politics is something we could probably live without. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it
Well I've downloaded the book so I'll give it a spin but seriously check out Thomas sowell's basic economics too.
I'm not defender of the right either. Lefties just get up my nose more because of the general smugness and presumption of occupying the high moral ground. Personally I don't see anything moral or progressive about bankrupting a population or mass murder (french revolution, soviet union, pol pot, chairman mao, North Korea and lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a socialist too) ". I've read lots of stuff by sowell! I'm a libertarian myself You can't argue or deny the credibility of free markets... But what they all deny, is that we no longer live in a free market economy! That's wholly evident from the last 15 years, just look at the banks or energy companies or military suppliers even the great Adam smith who sowell looks up to knew that "if you put four business men in a room together you'll get collusion".. And that was years ago, these days they've just refined the collision to an intrinsical level! Free markets are I'm afraid a thing of the last century. You might call yourself an entrepreneur and that sounds great but in reality it's just a modern hip sounding version of precarity! The next revolution will be in information not political science but the solution they seek might just be the century old guillotine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it
Well I've downloaded the book so I'll give it a spin but seriously check out Thomas sowell's basic economics too.
I'm not defender of the right either. Lefties just get up my nose more because of the general smugness and presumption of occupying the high moral ground. Personally I don't see anything moral or progressive about bankrupting a population or mass murder (french revolution, soviet union, pol pot, chairman mao, North Korea and lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a socialist too) .
I've read lots of stuff by sowell!
I'm a libertarian myself
You can't argue or deny the credibility of free markets... But what they all deny, is that we no longer live in a free market economy! That's wholly evident from the last 15 years, just look at the banks or energy companies or military suppliers even the great Adam smith who sowell looks up to knew that "if you put four business men in a room together you'll get collusion"..
And that was years ago, these days they've just refined the collision to an intrinsical level!
Free markets are I'm afraid a thing of the last century.
You might call yourself an entrepreneur and that sounds great but in reality it's just a modern hip sounding version of precarity!
The next revolution will be in information not political science but the solution they seek might just be the century old guillotine"Which military suppliers would you say are particularly successful businesses (e.g. make good money) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it
Well I've downloaded the book so I'll give it a spin but seriously check out Thomas sowell's basic economics too.
I'm not defender of the right either. Lefties just get up my nose more because of the general smugness and presumption of occupying the high moral ground. Personally I don't see anything moral or progressive about bankrupting a population or mass murder (french revolution, soviet union, pol pot, chairman mao, North Korea and lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a socialist too) .
I've read lots of stuff by sowell!
I'm a libertarian myself
You can't argue or deny the credibility of free markets... But what they all deny, is that we no longer live in a free market economy! That's wholly evident from the last 15 years, just look at the banks or energy companies or military suppliers even the great Adam smith who sowell looks up to knew that "if you put four business men in a room together you'll get collusion"..
And that was years ago, these days they've just refined the collision to an intrinsical level!
Free markets are I'm afraid a thing of the last century.
You might call yourself an entrepreneur and that sounds great but in reality it's just a modern hip sounding version of precarity!
The next revolution will be in information not political science but the solution they seek might just be the century old guillotine
Which military suppliers would you say are particularly successful businesses (e.g. make good money)"Ooo take your pick bae did well for a long time, Bosch did all right out of it, seimens, g.e.c, euro fighter, boeing there's dozens Then there's halliburton and blackwater two companies that literally have made money purely from the contacts they made through employing ex gov/army personnel | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it
Well I've downloaded the book so I'll give it a spin but seriously check out Thomas sowell's basic economics too.
I'm not defender of the right either. Lefties just get up my nose more because of the general smugness and presumption of occupying the high moral ground. Personally I don't see anything moral or progressive about bankrupting a population or mass murder (french revolution, soviet union, pol pot, chairman mao, North Korea and lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a socialist too) .
I've read lots of stuff by sowell!
I'm a libertarian myself
You can't argue or deny the credibility of free markets... But what they all deny, is that we no longer live in a free market economy! That's wholly evident from the last 15 years, just look at the banks or energy companies or military suppliers even the great Adam smith who sowell looks up to knew that "if you put four business men in a room together you'll get collusion"..
And that was years ago, these days they've just refined the collision to an intrinsical level!
Free markets are I'm afraid a thing of the last century.
You might call yourself an entrepreneur and that sounds great but in reality it's just a modern hip sounding version of precarity!
The next revolution will be in information not political science but the solution they seek might just be the century old guillotine
Which military suppliers would you say are particularly successful businesses (e.g. make good money)
Ooo take your pick bae did well for a long time, Bosch did all right out of it, seimens, g.e.c, euro fighter, boeing there's dozens
Then there's halliburton and blackwater two companies that literally have made money purely from the contacts they made through employing ex gov/army personnel"Well BAE'S average net margin is 5.4% compared to the average of any company which is 8.3%. Wouldn't really call Bosch or Siemens military companies, they don't appear on any top 100 defence company lists so I'd suspect most their profits come from divisions other than their defence interests. Boeing gets less than half it's money from defence although you could plausibly argue it's defence interest act as a knowledge subsidy to its commercial interests, but thats life. Eurofighter is a joint venture, partially owned by BAE who we've already established don't make much money. GEC doesn't exist anymore but parts of what it was are owned by... guess who (BAE) and Finmeccanica and their average net margin is even worse than BAE (2.3%). So just to be clear manufacturing stuff for the military ain't lucrative. And yes that includes drone manufacturing. Blackwater and Halliburton are what we call PMF's and a very different kettle of fish to your BAE's, Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics so I wouldn't really use them in the same sentence unless you think Facebook and Lenovo are comparable because they both operate in IT. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it
Well I've downloaded the book so I'll give it a spin but seriously check out Thomas sowell's basic economics too.
I'm not defender of the right either. Lefties just get up my nose more because of the general smugness and presumption of occupying the high moral ground. Personally I don't see anything moral or progressive about bankrupting a population or mass murder (french revolution, soviet union, pol pot, chairman mao, North Korea and lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a socialist too) .
I've read lots of stuff by sowell!
I'm a libertarian myself
You can't argue or deny the credibility of free markets... But what they all deny, is that we no longer live in a free market economy! That's wholly evident from the last 15 years, just look at the banks or energy companies or military suppliers even the great Adam smith who sowell looks up to knew that "if you put four business men in a room together you'll get collusion"..
And that was years ago, these days they've just refined the collision to an intrinsical level!
Free markets are I'm afraid a thing of the last century.
You might call yourself an entrepreneur and that sounds great but in reality it's just a modern hip sounding version of precarity!
The next revolution will be in information not political science but the solution they seek might just be the century old guillotine
Which military suppliers would you say are particularly successful businesses (e.g. make good money)
Ooo take your pick bae did well for a long time, Bosch did all right out of it, seimens, g.e.c, euro fighter, boeing there's dozens
Then there's halliburton and blackwater two companies that literally have made money purely from the contacts they made through employing ex gov/army personnel
Well BAE'S average net margin is 5.4% compared to the average of any company which is 8.3%. Wouldn't really call Bosch or Siemens military companies, they don't appear on any top 100 defence company lists so I'd suspect most their profits come from divisions other than their defence interests. Boeing gets less than half it's money from defence although you could plausibly argue it's defence interest act as a knowledge subsidy to its commercial interests, but thats life. Eurofighter is a joint venture, partially owned by BAE who we've already established don't make much money. GEC doesn't exist anymore but parts of what it was are owned by... guess who (BAE) and Finmeccanica and their average net margin is even worse than BAE (2.3%). So just to be clear manufacturing stuff for the military ain't lucrative. And yes that includes drone manufacturing.
Blackwater and Halliburton are what we call PMF's and a very different kettle of fish to your BAE's, Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics so I wouldn't really use them in the same sentence unless you think Facebook and Lenovo are comparable because they both operate in IT. ". You asked for military suppliers not military manufacturers Would you call Bosch a car company, obviously not, but pull apart any car by any manufacturer and guess what you'll find... Bosch parts purposely designed for that car! Like I said things are intrinsically linked. Bae I had a quick look... 2010 turned over 21 billion Pre tax profit of 1.35 billion Profit of 1.09 billion. Not exactly chunk change, and you really need to examine the level of bribery they've done for years I mean that 21 billion can get sliced and diced many ways like I said in the al yamamah deal that Thacher approved and courted! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it
Well I've downloaded the book so I'll give it a spin but seriously check out Thomas sowell's basic economics too.
I'm not defender of the right either. Lefties just get up my nose more because of the general smugness and presumption of occupying the high moral ground. Personally I don't see anything moral or progressive about bankrupting a population or mass murder (french revolution, soviet union, pol pot, chairman mao, North Korea and lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a socialist too) .
I've read lots of stuff by sowell!
I'm a libertarian myself
You can't argue or deny the credibility of free markets... But what they all deny, is that we no longer live in a free market economy! That's wholly evident from the last 15 years, just look at the banks or energy companies or military suppliers even the great Adam smith who sowell looks up to knew that "if you put four business men in a room together you'll get collusion"..
And that was years ago, these days they've just refined the collision to an intrinsical level!
Free markets are I'm afraid a thing of the last century.
You might call yourself an entrepreneur and that sounds great but in reality it's just a modern hip sounding version of precarity!
The next revolution will be in information not political science but the solution they seek might just be the century old guillotine
Which military suppliers would you say are particularly successful businesses (e.g. make good money)
Ooo take your pick bae did well for a long time, Bosch did all right out of it, seimens, g.e.c, euro fighter, boeing there's dozens
Then there's halliburton and blackwater two companies that literally have made money purely from the contacts they made through employing ex gov/army personnel
Well BAE'S average net margin is 5.4% compared to the average of any company which is 8.3%. Wouldn't really call Bosch or Siemens military companies, they don't appear on any top 100 defence company lists so I'd suspect most their profits come from divisions other than their defence interests. Boeing gets less than half it's money from defence although you could plausibly argue it's defence interest act as a knowledge subsidy to its commercial interests, but thats life. Eurofighter is a joint venture, partially owned by BAE who we've already established don't make much money. GEC doesn't exist anymore but parts of what it was are owned by... guess who (BAE) and Finmeccanica and their average net margin is even worse than BAE (2.3%). So just to be clear manufacturing stuff for the military ain't lucrative. And yes that includes drone manufacturing.
Blackwater and Halliburton are what we call PMF's and a very different kettle of fish to your BAE's, Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics so I wouldn't really use them in the same sentence unless you think Facebook and Lenovo are comparable because they both operate in IT. .
You asked for military suppliers not military manufacturers
Would you call Bosch a car company, obviously not, but pull apart any car by any manufacturer and guess what you'll find... Bosch parts purposely designed for that car!
Like I said things are intrinsically linked.
Bae I had a quick look...
2010 turned over 21 billion
Pre tax profit of 1.35 billion
Profit of 1.09 billion.
Not exactly chunk change, and you really need to examine the level of bribery they've done for years
I mean that 21 billion can get sliced and diced many ways like I said in the al yamamah deal that Thacher approved and courted!
"Sorry i'm not really familiar with the distinction between a manufacturer who sells their goods to the militart and a military supplier!? So as you say, BAE had a 5.2% net margin that year which is well below average. So if you were an investor, you'd look at that and think it was a bit shit considering BAE is a publically traded company and the average publically traded company would make 8.3% net margin. So say what you will about bribery, drones and civil servant rotation but don't say it's lucrative because it ain't! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well I appreciate your reasoned approach to debate, I haven't heard of that book, it does sound interesting but I have one concern, what exactly is he using to measure g? (Is it based on GDP, GNP or one of those other measures economists like?) . His work is very encompassing He really pulls in data from all over, house price costs, commodity costs, clothing, food, income, tax But even he says, there's more studying to be done as the collection of data on these subjects is huge, however his book leads to the obvious well known conclusion that wealth accrues with the wealthiest but in the last 40 years it's accelerating faster than ever! Now my opinion is it's accelerating faster because of the influence of wealth through politics? I might be right I might be wrong I'm just giving an opinion but I try to base my opinion on facts as I said to somebody yesterday, I was born a leftist, my mother overly loved me .
For every leftist that makes you groan with their politically correct statements and hug a hoodie mentality... To the point where you say oh for Christ sake somebody shoot me.... Remember
There's a right wing nut in the background with a gun ready to do it
Well I've downloaded the book so I'll give it a spin but seriously check out Thomas sowell's basic economics too.
I'm not defender of the right either. Lefties just get up my nose more because of the general smugness and presumption of occupying the high moral ground. Personally I don't see anything moral or progressive about bankrupting a population or mass murder (french revolution, soviet union, pol pot, chairman mao, North Korea and lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a socialist too) .
I've read lots of stuff by sowell!
I'm a libertarian myself
You can't argue or deny the credibility of free markets... But what they all deny, is that we no longer live in a free market economy! That's wholly evident from the last 15 years, just look at the banks or energy companies or military suppliers even the great Adam smith who sowell looks up to knew that "if you put four business men in a room together you'll get collusion"..
And that was years ago, these days they've just refined the collision to an intrinsical level!
Free markets are I'm afraid a thing of the last century.
You might call yourself an entrepreneur and that sounds great but in reality it's just a modern hip sounding version of precarity!
The next revolution will be in information not political science but the solution they seek might just be the century old guillotine
Which military suppliers would you say are particularly successful businesses (e.g. make good money)
Ooo take your pick bae did well for a long time, Bosch did all right out of it, seimens, g.e.c, euro fighter, boeing there's dozens
Then there's halliburton and blackwater two companies that literally have made money purely from the contacts they made through employing ex gov/army personnel
Well BAE'S average net margin is 5.4% compared to the average of any company which is 8.3%. Wouldn't really call Bosch or Siemens military companies, they don't appear on any top 100 defence company lists so I'd suspect most their profits come from divisions other than their defence interests. Boeing gets less than half it's money from defence although you could plausibly argue it's defence interest act as a knowledge subsidy to its commercial interests, but thats life. Eurofighter is a joint venture, partially owned by BAE who we've already established don't make much money. GEC doesn't exist anymore but parts of what it was are owned by... guess who (BAE) and Finmeccanica and their average net margin is even worse than BAE (2.3%). So just to be clear manufacturing stuff for the military ain't lucrative. And yes that includes drone manufacturing.
Blackwater and Halliburton are what we call PMF's and a very different kettle of fish to your BAE's, Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics so I wouldn't really use them in the same sentence unless you think Facebook and Lenovo are comparable because they both operate in IT. .
You asked for military suppliers not military manufacturers
Would you call Bosch a car company, obviously not, but pull apart any car by any manufacturer and guess what you'll find... Bosch parts purposely designed for that car!
Like I said things are intrinsically linked.
Bae I had a quick look...
2010 turned over 21 billion
Pre tax profit of 1.35 billion
Profit of 1.09 billion.
Not exactly chunk change, and you really need to examine the level of bribery they've done for years
I mean that 21 billion can get sliced and diced many ways like I said in the al yamamah deal that Thacher approved and courted!
Sorry i'm not really familiar with the distinction between a manufacturer who sells their goods to the militart and a military supplier!?
So as you say, BAE had a 5.2% net margin that year which is well below average. So if you were an investor, you'd look at that and think it was a bit shit considering BAE is a publically traded company and the average publically traded company would make 8.3% net margin. So say what you will about bribery, drones and civil servant rotation but don't say it's lucrative because it ain't! ". Yeah but there not interested in it being lucrative just the ability to siphon off as much as possible into private accounts! Collision and bribery is not new, what's new is the fact they get away with it even after its been exposed? Like I said government is openly courted and unduly influenced by multi nationals! You keep claiming free markets but there's a perfect example of the nonsense of it. Oil is not a free market, it's price is controlled not by market forces but by cartel. Thatchers deal with prince bandar over the al yamamah deal led to inflated plane prices of 32% to the Saudi people because there was corruption and manipulation of the contract by business and government! If you want to examine the real harm the deal did, then check out the many journalists who've tried to trace what prince bandar did with the estimated 6 billion he personally syphoned off from the deal, that money has gone on to buy weapons that's turned up in Africa, Afghanistan, Syria and isis! It always makes me chuckle that leftist are deamed to be dreamers unaware of reality, but when you point reality out to the right wingers they go into the complete same trance. The reality that the data points to is that multinational conglomerates run the world and they run the world in what's best for them and profits! This hinders technological progress worse than anything the left could dream up, because the reality is they need work and that stops robotic automated progress of goods, you can't sell shit to robots!! However left to a truly free market we wouldn't need a minimum wage! And most of the stuff we currently consume would be completely automated, fiat were building fully automated cars in 1984...I used a zx81 as a 14 year old then!.... Ones evolved massively and would and should have dragged the other along with it but it hasn't! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right so just to be clear, your argument is that BAE don't really make that net profit margin (the real figure is higher) because a big chunk of money is taken off to the side first, probably in a bag with "for the 1%" marked on it" Who said anything about free markets? There's no such thing as a free market and there's not meant to be. My solution included better regulators, you keep talking about right wing - I ain't fucking right wing. I'm saying left and right are both wrong. I'm saying the solutions to our problems are quite boring and mundane, and found in the middle ground. They involve people actually doing the damn job they are paid to do (regulators), polticians thinking for themselves (not their whips) and keeping taxes low so people have liberty which is what lefties are supposed to love in the first place. " . Mostly I agree with you! But I think you'll find that if you look at who cut the regulation from say the banking industry! It was both right wing (Thatcher and Reagan) and left wing (Clinton and Blair) and that's my point about politics bring unduly influenced by the very few to benefit the very few! Both of these sets of ideology were guilty of being bribed by the banks against all the advice I would say of the regulators of the day, most of them completely predicted the exact outcome of what the banks have just been trough.... In fact I hate to say this but... If you read Lenin's book imperialism the highest stage of capitalism, he points out exactly what we've just been through and he wrote that book in 1914! There trouble with Lenin was he was an extremist and couldn't see how to do capitalism better without extremist solutions! But fundamentally he was still a capitalist!. I'm sorry I never meant to refer to you as right wing or free markets... That was me responding to sowells ideology, he is quite correct in his thinking but like the other economists unable to admit how rigged the markets are! And how corrupt the governments are with big business | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right so just to be clear, your argument is that BAE don't really make that net profit margin (the real figure is higher) because a big chunk of money is taken off to the side first, probably in a bag with "for the 1%" marked on it" Who said anything about free markets? There's no such thing as a free market and there's not meant to be. My solution included better regulators, you keep talking about right wing - I ain't fucking right wing. I'm saying left and right are both wrong. I'm saying the solutions to our problems are quite boring and mundane, and found in the middle ground. They involve people actually doing the damn job they are paid to do (regulators), polticians thinking for themselves (not their whips) and keeping taxes low so people have liberty which is what lefties are supposed to love in the first place. . Mostly I agree with you! But I think you'll find that if you look at who cut the regulation from say the banking industry! It was both right wing (Thatcher and Reagan) and left wing (Clinton and Blair) and that's my point about politics bring unduly influenced by the very few to benefit the very few! Both of these sets of ideology were guilty of being bribed by the banks against all the advice I would say of the regulators of the day, most of them completely predicted the exact outcome of what the banks have just been trough.... In fact I hate to say this but... If you read Lenin's book imperialism the highest stage of capitalism, he points out exactly what we've just been through and he wrote that book in 1914! There trouble with Lenin was he was an extremist and couldn't see how to do capitalism better without extremist solutions! But fundamentally he was still a capitalist!. I'm sorry I never meant to refer to you as right wing or free markets... That was me responding to sowells ideology, he is quite correct in his thinking but like the other economists unable to admit how rigged the markets are! And how corrupt the governments are with big business" Well there we go, I agree with that. Sowell's problem is that he assumes everyone's rational and doing what they are supposed to be doing. I only reference him to say that the system should work, it's just not free from corruption which is why we need regulators and other safety checks (e.g. shareholder activism, decent non-executive directors etc) Sowell can't really cope with the idea of an executive running a bank in a way that will make profits look good for the next three months but bring down the entire system within 5 years, because it isn't rational. So there are people who are very short term in their thinking, let's called them 'morons' and sometimes morons get into positions of power, especially when other morons put them there (e.g. a CEO who doesn't want a strong successor). However, morons aren't all that difficult to spot so getting rid of morons is much easier than redesigning a whole new alternative system. Less exiting though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With America getting stirred up about next year's election, how will you remember Obama? He came to power with high expectations and remember those "Yes we can" chants? So did he or did "Yes we can" become "oh no you didn't"? " All piss and wind as he failed to deliver on his promises. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
