Different Directions

China Set to Restore Private Property Rights

In the meantime, Hillary Clinton recently, on oil company profits, said:

I would take those excessive profits....

No word on how she would address the damage to retirement income for those hard-working middle class who will depend on their IRA's and 401K's to supplement Social Security... changes to which, she ALSO opposes.

Perhaps part of those windfalls would be used to fund federal agencies to distribute the booty directly to those affected... which would also employ a goodly number of clerks and bureaucrats, beholden to the party that created their jobs.

 

Unless that's the entirety of Clinton's quote (which I doubt given the ellipse at the end), it's rather disingenuous to take it out of context like that, especially without even linking to a source.

 

And it's an amazing quality of kool-aid drinkers that they continue to spew party genearalist dogma DESPITE me making pointed references as to how doing so is harmful to the general welfare of the country.

By your buzz-words shall I know you.

>>> If I provided the link and context you wouldnt read it anyway... you have said as much.

I made a specific context of POV... you responded with:

I'm likely in far worse financial shape than you are.... but I know where to place the blame. And it isn't 'the MAN'

 

Here's a slightly off-topic question, but applicable to something you said, Don: which do you think is better: the current medical insurance system (admittedly VASTLY flawed) or Canada's system of socialized medicine? I have a very good friend from Saskatchewan who says he'd rather have it the way we have it here (with some fixes, naturally). Or is there a better alternative that anyone has brought up (I'm sure there is; I'm not terribly politically active or well-informed; please forgive my ignorance)? Thoughts, please--I'm very curious!

 

I'm not sure if you're accusing me of being a Kool-Aid drinker or spewing partyist dogma, Pettyfog, but I still haven't seen the context of that little snippet of Clinton text.

 

Nice diversion... if I go into a specific topic, you branch over to generalities... if I quote generalities with a specific instance you jump to another.

You MIGHT look deeper into over federal revenues v tax rates. Even Dems use the vehicle when it's in their interest.

NOW.... I am flatly stating that I need no context in quoting Hillary.. those few words exactly conveyed her meaning. We MIGHT discuss the advisability of changing corporate profit margins, I certainly would advocate Exxon et al to do a flat margin calculation on a gallon of crude, rather than price of a gallon of crude, THEN a margin percentage on overhead and production costs... but that is beside the point.

But if you want to play dogmatic games about the right of the poor working stiff, what's your view on the Dem's passing a law against Union Secret Balloting... you know, they are FOR the secret ballot when they are trying to get into a company; against it if they are already in and it's about union dues usage or whatever.

- For those of you who think they suffered a pay CUT, ... BEFORE that time, they didnt qualify for any assistance. The military has ALWAYS been 'poorly paid', but ours were at that time among the highest, if not highest, paid among the Western Countries.

 

Washington View: Democrats' proposal threatens free choice

I'm not surprised you 'missed that'. Your favorite media sources MEANT you to miss it.

** Ever belong to a union? If so, you wont attempt to say the worker STILL has freedom of choice. Yeah, the little nerdy schoolkid in the glasses doesnt REALLY have to give up his lunch money.

 

Why shouldn't she take at least some of those profits?

I'm no frikin Marxist but the growing economic disparity in this country makes me want to puke.

I appreciate the value of proving yourself on merit and earning what your worth but when is enough enough?

Can't a CEO live on 10mil rather than 20mil?

Were talking 6,7,8,9,10 billion BILLION as in B, per QUARTER in profits!

Come on. I hate the victim mentality but honestly there are victims. Lets acknowledge that.

People need health care, people need access to a college education. Even if we took drastic measures and took 20% of those massive profits they're posting they'd still be doing just fine, I'm certain.

 

What "diversion"? I've asked the same thing a few times now. You're the one who's diverting attention from the fact that you're not providing context for a quote that doesn't even amount to a complete sentence.

YOU may believe you need no context because you believe those few words conveyed her meaning. Are the rest of us supposed to assume that they actually did simply because you say so? Why don't you provide some context and let us see whether or not we agree with you?

 

A national health care program might've been reasonably affordable in 1949 (I guess, anyway - I don't know how much we spent on the interstate highway system) but any such system would cost a whole lot of money now.