Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Founder Of Reaganomics Says That “Without A Revolution, Americans Are History”
- This topic has 285 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM #593974August 18, 2010 at 10:40 PM #592931GHParticipant
By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!
August 18, 2010 at 10:40 PM #593028GHParticipantBy the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!
August 18, 2010 at 10:40 PM #593562GHParticipantBy the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!
August 18, 2010 at 10:40 PM #593673GHParticipantBy the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!
August 18, 2010 at 10:40 PM #593984GHParticipantBy the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!
August 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM #592936daveljParticipant[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]
I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.
August 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM #593033daveljParticipant[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]
I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.
August 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM #593567daveljParticipant[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]
I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.
August 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM #593678daveljParticipant[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]
I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.
August 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM #593989daveljParticipant[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]
I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.
August 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM #592951CA renterParticipant[quote=Jim Jones][quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.
It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?
August 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM #593048CA renterParticipant[quote=Jim Jones][quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.
It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?
August 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM #593582CA renterParticipant[quote=Jim Jones][quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.
It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?
August 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM #593693CA renterParticipant[quote=Jim Jones][quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.
It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.