| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2004 07:37:47 PM · #51 |
We could argue the "unfairness" forever. How about the policeman, fireman, paramedics, etc...who literally put their lives on the line everyday for us and get paid crap. While a near high school drop-out can shoot hoops and be contracted for millions. Life is not fair, but remember, you choose to do whatever you do. Hopefully you choose what you do because you love it. If you go to work everyday hating it, you should evaluate changing your profession.
Back to photography, who picked up their first camera with the thought of making money? How about the simple love of the art!!! |
|
|
|
03/01/2004 08:04:42 PM · #52 |
Fairness is just one aspect to the economic equation. Criminality is another. There may be big businesses today that started as small M&P stores, but later on, at some point, crossed a line that brought them into a whole new areana where they changed their business practices for the sake of greed. I'm sure many examples could be sited of criminality at the big business level that made them the monoliths they are today. Two examples are Microsoft, and anti-trust, and Enron.
By the way, Enron's main business practice was to buy off politicians and get them to push through legislation in favor of projects that they wanted. They did it with Bill Clinton and a dam that was built in India that had a terrible impact on the land and the people's that lived in that region for thousands of miles around. Clinton put pressure on the Indian gov't to give Enron the contract.
edit: I should add that all of these big businesses contribute heavily to all of the politicians from both of the major parties and at all levels.
What were talking about here are oligopolies and monopolies that will have, and already do have, enormous say and impacts in how things are run all over the world.....and they likely will not be for the beneifit of mankind on the whole.
What they are eventually doing though, is making everyone so poor (except themselves), that few will have the money to buy their products and, I fear, the consequences that that will bring.
Message edited by author 2004-03-01 20:08:35. |
|
|
|
03/01/2004 08:36:54 PM · #53 |
| What I want know is, who put the pants in Mrs. Murphy's stew???? Huh?? |
|
|
|
03/01/2004 09:19:23 PM · #54 |
what the hell does this pollitcal bullshit have to do with photography.
get your communist ass back to china or cuba.
How many billions in wealth have the walton family created for themselves and others?
This really pisses me off, I posted something about guns onces and got instantly shut down and blocked, but your ignorant anti-corporate crap gets allowed to stay, because it fits with the politics of the masters of this site. |
|
|
|
03/01/2004 10:10:38 PM · #55 |
Anyone who supports Walmarts business practice is clueless to what is really going on. //www.walmartwatch.com/index.cfm
Also read on their business practices with their suppliers and how they are forcing thousands of jobs out of the country. They are single handedly
This isn't anti-corporate crap. I love MSFT, ORCL, GE etc... I think they are great business' that support growth in America (well GE.... awe forget it... LOL)but Walmart clearly doesn't... WTO, NAFTA and Walmart should always be mentioned in the same breath...
IMO... |
|
|
|
03/01/2004 10:28:50 PM · #56 |
Well I'm a greedy bastard, I will continue to shop at walmart because it's a 2 mile drive from the house and because I save boatloads of money, time and headachs by shopping there...
But then again I'm just a greedy conservative out to save my self a few bucks!!!
|
|
|
|
03/01/2004 10:49:03 PM · #57 |
Well I'm a greedy bastard, I will continue to shop at walmart because it's a 2 mile drive from the house and because I save boatloads of money, time and headachs by shopping there...
But then again I'm just a greedy conservative out to save my self a few bucks!!!
I've come to the Conclusion that people speak without thinking.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2004 10:50:00 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Forbes
Check all the Wal Mart gang, folks are working hard for 8$ an hour for them to collect billions ! |
Whats wrong with that? I don't believe in redistribution of wealth! Just because someone was smarter, harder working or even born into money doesn't mean I should get a piece of it because I work for them or HELP/AID them make those millions... |
That has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth,just fairnes in compensating the people who help you to get wealthy!
But your brain is so narrow, you will never get that anyway and we will be argueing here forever! |
No one should earn more than 8 bucks an hour flipping burgers or running a cash register. By increasing the lowest wage you just narrow the gap between the 2 lowest classes. Eventually leaving a 2 class system, rich and poor...;D |
|
|
|
03/01/2004 11:28:29 PM · #59 |
What's all the fuss about?? It's not like a billion dollars is a lot of money when you think it through. If I were paid a mere $3600 per hour, all 24 hours of every day (a meager $86,400 per day, only $604,800 per week) it would only take 31.7 years to reach ONE billion dollars. You see, it sounds like a lot but when you break it down it's really not that much.
With that in mind I'm off to write the first of my series of books about young wizards in a fantasy world complete with magic wands, flying brooms, etc.... |
|
|
|
03/02/2004 06:59:41 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by jbruno1397:
bravo GeneralE!!!!!!
but as a libertarian, I just want everyone out of my business.
what is a libertarian? a pot smoking republican. |
Or looking at it the other way... A republican is a libertarian that hasn't been arrested yet. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:57:10 AM · #61 |
Take your time, the math is really simple ....
=====================================================
From The New York Times:
March 2, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Maestro of Chutzpah
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The traditional definition of chutzpah says it's when you murder your parents, then plead for clemency because you're an orphan. Alan Greenspan has chutzpah.
Last week Mr. Greenspan warned of the dangers posed by budget deficits. But even though the main cause of deficits is plunging revenue the federal government's tax take is now at its lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950 he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses. Instead, he supports the Bush administration's plan to make its tax cuts permanent, and calls for cuts in Social Security benefits.
Yet three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, warning that otherwise the federal government would run excessive surpluses. He assured Congress that those tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits. And last year he declined to stand in the way of another round of deficit-creating tax cuts.
But wait it gets worse.
You see, although the rest of the government is running huge deficits and never did run much of a surplus the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
And the reason Social Security is in fairly good shape is that during the 1980's the Greenspan commission persuaded Congress to increase the payroll tax, which supports the program.
The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, families near the middle of the income distribution pay almost twice as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes. Yet people were willing to accept a regressive tax increase to sustain Social Security.
Now the joke's on them. Mr. Greenspan pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used that surplus to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people, but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits.
The point, of course, is that if anyone had tried to sell this package honestly "Let's raise taxes and cut benefits for working families so we can give big tax cuts to the rich!" voters would have been outraged. So the class warriors of the right engaged in bait-and-switch.
There are three lessons in this tale.
First, "starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.
Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants. Social Security and Medicare are the targets because that's where the money is. We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security (from a nonexistent crisis), but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point.
Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.
The Bush White House has made it clear that it will destroy the careers of scientists, budget experts, intelligence operatives and even military officers who don't toe the line. But Mr. Greenspan should have been immune to such pressures, and he should have understood that the peculiarity of his position as an unelected official who wields immense power carries with it an obligation to stand above the fray. By using his office to promote a partisan agenda, he has betrayed his institution, and the nation.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 07:42:28 AM · #62 |
And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits.
Oh, gosh, it was the tax cuts that contributed to the deficit? Omigoligosh, I thought that the fallout from a little event on 9/11 had something to do with that! Amazing, how could I be so misguided? And with all this talk of a "surplus" consumer debt has been on the upswing all along.
Public Debt to the Penny
Tax Freedom Day
And finally, again, yes, the math is fairly simple if you can follow it:
----------------------------------------
Article link
Robert Novak: Clinton-cooked books?
August 9, 2002 Posted: 4:41 PM EDT (2041 GMT)
WASHINGTONThe Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?
click article link above for the rest of the article
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 09:34:05 AM · #63 |
Once again, the liberal left, in their endless pitch that only BIG ( Democratically controlled ) GOVERNMENT can insure the health and wealth of the American People, offers only accusations, innuendo, and dire warnings - not facts. So in counterpoint, here are some facts:
"Countries around the world, including Chile, Australia, Mexico, Singapore, and Great Britain, have allowed workers to opt out of unsound government schemes in favor of private savings plans. The results have been spectacular, with higher levels of retirement income and more security for senior citizens. Less well known is the success of private retirement savings in the United States... Government employees from the Texas counties of Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda chose to opt out of Social Security in the early 1980s. The amount these employees pay into the system is similar to the Social Security tax, but the return is much greater. Retirement income for low-income workers in the private plan will be three times greater - and for middle-income workers, five times greater - than it would be if they were forced to pay Social Security taxes. Moreover, the disability and life insurance benefits available under the private Texas plan are more generous than those available under Social Security."
You can read more HERE if you're not afraid of the truth.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:38:19 AM · #64 |
| I am a bit surprised that someone would cite The Heritage Foundation as a purveyor of truth. They are about as objective as Fox News. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:42:36 AM · #65 |
Political Philosophies......
Libertarians are self-govenors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.
Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.
Right-Conservatives prefer self-government on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. They want government to defend the community from threats to its moral fibre.
Authoritarians want government to advance society and individuals through expert central planning. They often doubt whether self-government is practical. Left-Authoritarians are also called socialists, while Right-Authoritarians are typically fascists.
Most people are a blend of these and compromise on candidates based upon a couple of "core" personal issues. In this election season, this information may minimize the name calling and get folks to discuss the differences between philosophies.
Flash
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:11:50 PM · #66 |
From the Political Science SAT:
Joan and Susan attend the same college, where both are seniors due to graduate in May. Joan is very studious, carries a full course-load, and will graduate with a 3.7 GPA. She thinks that all the hard work and long hours will begin to bear fruit soon. Susan, on the other hand, has taken full advantage of all the social life college offers, takes only easy courses, yet is still only squeaking through with a 2.1 GPA. She thinks that she's earned a degree because she "spent four years at college". The DEAN of the college thinks that it's not fair that Joan will probably have an great advantage over Susan in securing a good job after college, and he agrees that Susan has "put in the time", so he decides to adjust both of their GPA's to an equal value of 2.9. He calls this a "need based" redistribution of grades.
The Dean is a _____________
a) Libertarian
b) Democrat
c) Republican
If the Dean were to run for political office, he could count on support from ___________
d) Joan, and other like-minded people
e) Susan, and other like-minded people
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any government that steals from Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. |
|
|
|
03/05/2004 12:44:02 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I am a bit surprised that someone would cite The Heritage Foundation as a purveyor of truth. They are about as objective as Fox News. |
What kind of idiot statement is this? Why is fox not objective? |
|
|
|
03/05/2004 12:57:30 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I am a bit surprised that someone would cite The Heritage Foundation as a purveyor of truth. They are about as objective as Fox News. |
What kind of idiot statement is this? Why is fox not objective? |
Fox is objective as Stalin's KGB! lol |
|
|
|
03/05/2004 01:42:53 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Originally posted by coolhar:
I am a bit surprised that someone would cite The Heritage Foundation as a purveyor of truth. They are about as objective as Fox News. |
What kind of idiot statement is this? Why is fox not objective? |
Decades of left-wing dominance in the media has instilled the sense that left is center. So anything objective and balanced appears unbalanced to the indoctrinated. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:07:12 AM EDT.
