Are College Students Too Liberal to Vote?

[KilljoyKlown]

As a high school senior i would have to admit that if Republicans wanted to take voting rights away from a group they could probably do it the easiest to young adults. Don't get me wrong....some young adults like me actually watch the news and think about politics and world events but the majority?.....

I have to admit that having my voting rights taken away would anger me because I love politics,history,economics, and philosophy and I can't wait to vote the first chance I get.
Personally I would like to see what would happen if voting rights were taken away from seniors. I can see it now....rioting grandma's and grandpa's in wheelchairs and walkers, violently throwing their meds at strangers then traveling to Florida to establish a Senior's Paradise.
Funny thing is...if Republicans did that a majority of seniors would probably blame Obama

I applaud your attitude, but I think you would be very surprised at what us seniors know and who we would blame. Republicans are nasty creatures that would sabotage their own mothers if it would guarantee they would get elected. I have no doubt the medical reform bill mess is the direct result of republican activity.

 

[Michael]

I'm looking forward to the day when we vote with our iPhone - part of creating a more effective political system is making it easier for voters to vote not harder.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I'm looking forward to the day when we vote with our iPhone - part of creating a more effective political system is making it easier for voters to vote not harder.

I'm a big fan of biometrics that could be a built in feature of many smart devices. But unless they can make a device that can absolutely ID each individual person without errors, they won't be voting with Iphone or any other smart phone. But I too really like that concept.

 

[siphra]

Increasing taxes actually increases jobs. Corporations become less likely to give it away as CEO salary (tax deductible) and more likely to invest in the company. And why do we assume corporations can do as they wish, that they are above the law? If they leave, then fuck them, they can't bring a cent back and they can't sell anything here without a tariff.

Wow, um, your actually wrong here on many levels. But lets go backwards in order, first, if they leave, they are going to a nation which we probably have free trade with, which means THEY DON'T PAY TARIFFS. And the loss of jobs means less revenue for the government to pay for all those programs you love so much. Corporations leaving are the exact reason for most of our economic woes, as we now import far more than we export.

No one assumes corporations are above the law, however in the best interest of the economic and therefore military and civil they are generally given more room to act with respect to certain laws.

Now as to the absolute retarded first part of your statement. A maximum per corporation of $4 Million is tax deductible. How much would you really gain? And since that $4 Million is now NOT in the companies hands to give back to the employees as you think will happen. In addition I can find no evidence that raising corporate taxes has ever increased the employment numbers, please find the information and link it for review.

 

[spidergoat]

So you admit that this country allows US corporations to undermine organized labor by outsourcing jobs.

 

[siphra]

So you admit that this country allows US corporations to undermine organized labor by outsourcing jobs.

And why should a corporation not be allowed to do what is best for its own operations? Why should a corporation exist if not to produce profit for its owners? Corporations do not exist to provide jobs, they exist because one person had an idea to make money, and people thought the product being produced was worth something and purchased it. Jobs exist because corporations make profit.

 

[quinnsong]

And why should a corporation not be allowed to do what is best for its own operations? Why should a corporation exist if not to produce profit for its owners? Corporations do not exist to provide jobs, they exist because one person had an idea to make money, and people thought the product being produced was worth something and purchased it. Jobs exist because corporations make profit.

What happens when workers do not make enuf for their labor and can no longer buy the corporations products?

 

[siphra]

What happens when workers do not make enuf for their labor and can no longer buy the corporations products?

LOL, common argument, but essentially flawed in interpretation.

Raising the cost of labor will increase the cost of products, so the net effect is at best 0, but usually worse.

I was going to type a rather long description of how this works, but I doubt you would bother reading it. But essentially

Company 1 has no over head, pays its people $1 per unit production.. Company 2 buys it at $2 per unit from company 1 and pays its people for production $1 per unit production.
Company 3 buys the product at $4 and sells it at $6 and pays its employees $1 per sale.

Increase the labor at step 1, by $.25 well company 1 now has to sell the product for more, so it sells it now at $2.50, company 2 has to increase its minimum wage to $1.25 as well, it went from a cost of $3.00 to $3.75 for each unit, in order to continue operation it now needs to sell the product for $5.00. Company 3 now needs to pay $5, and it's employees $1.25, now it sells it for $7.50.

Net effect in this case is nothing, because I am not counting for transportation, taxes and a lot of other things, this is the simple version.

A %25 increase in wage yielded a %50 increase in final product cost. Fact is that inflation is partially caused by increase in labor costs.

 

[quinnsong]

LOL, common argument, but essentially flawed in interpretation.

Raising the cost of labor will increase the cost of products, so the net effect is at best 0, but usually worse.

I was going to type a rather long description of how this works, but I doubt you would bother reading it. But essentially

Company 1 has no over head, pays its people $1 per unit production.. Company 2 buys it at $2 per unit from company 1 and pays its people for production $1 per unit production.
Company 3 buys the product at $4 and sells it at $6 and pays its employees $1 per sale.

Increase the labor at step 1, by $.25 well company 1 now has to sell the product for more, so it sells it now at $2.50, company 2 has to increase its minimum wage to $1.25 as well, it went from a cost of $3.00 to $3.75 for each unit, in order to continue operation it now needs to sell the product for $5.00. Company 3 now needs to pay $5, and it's employees $1.25, now it sells it for $7.50.

Net effect in this case is nothing, because I am not counting for transportation, taxes and a lot of other things, this is the simple version.

A %25 increase in wage yielded a %50 increase in final product cost. Fact is that inflation is partially caused by increase in labor costs.

Oops you are right forgot second part share the profits too! That CEO and the shareholders get way too much return on the initial input! You wanna do business in my country the laws would not be made to favor business only!

 

[chimpkin]

And why should a corporation not be allowed to do what is best for its own operations?

Because there is such a thing as the over-arcing economic interest of a country, of a region, of a society.

They ARE more important than the needs of one single corporation.

That is what a national industrial policy is, what we don't have, what we need.

Other countries manage to have prosperous shareholders AND prosperous workers by using national industrial policies and neo-merchantilist protectionism.

So this popular argument that we all have to slit our throats for corporate profits does not wash with me. Nor should it with you, unless you're one of the ones chuckling behind your hand all the way to the bank.

Besides that, production cost is only part of what sets cost-and it's not always the primary factor...it's what sets "base" cost, yes-but what really sets cost is "what the market will bear", I.E. how much people are able and willing to pay for things.
Competition drives cost closer to "base"-that is, closer to what it cost the maker to make it. But the manufacturer's going to charge whatever the manufacturer CAN. Of course.

Look, we've been engaging in free trade since Reagan was elected (and I was in elementary school)...and what I've seen has been a never-ending exodus of The Good Manufacturing Job my entire life. Plus financial crisis after financial crisis. Add to that a long, slow downhill slide for just about everyone I know.

I believe that paper and electronic money conceals a really simple fact: all economy is really barter.
We need to trade stuff for stuff again, address the trade deficit, and get back a manufacturing base here. We can't base a real economy on the service industry!

Failure to get back that manufacturing base is going to ensure we remain as broke as we currently are.

 

[quinnsong]

Because there is such a thing as the over-arcing economic interest of a country, of a region, of a society.

They ARE more important than the needs of one single corporation.

That is what a national industrial policy is, what we don't have, what we need.

Other countries manage to have prosperous shareholders AND prosperous workers by using national industrial policies and neo-merchantilist protectionism.

So this popular argument that we all have to slit our throats for corporate profits does not wash with me. Nor should it with you, unless you're one of the ones chuckling behind your hand all the way to the bank.

Besides that, production cost is only part of what sets cost-and it's not always the primary factor...it's what sets "base" cost, yes-but what really sets cost is "what the market will bear", I.E. how much people are able and willing to pay for things.
Competition drives cost closer to "base"-that is, closer to what it cost the maker to make it. But the manufacturer's going to charge whatever the manufacturer CAN. Of course.

Look, we've been engaging in free trade since Reagan was elected (and I was in elementary school)...and what I've seen has been a never-ending exodus of The Good Manufacturing Job my entire life. Plus financial crisis after financial crisis. Add to that a long, slow downhill slide for just about everyone I know.

I believe that paper and electronic money conceals a really simple fact: all economy is really barter.
We need to trade stuff for stuff again, address the trade deficit, and get back a manufacturing base here. We can't base a real economy on the service industry!

Failure to get back that manufacturing base is going to ensure we remain as broke as we currently are.

I think you scared him away Chimpkin!

 

[chimpkin]

Nahh...he just probably decided We Just Don't Get It and went to the WSJ page or something..

..

.....(\'..'/).....​

(It's a left-wing moonbat, like me!)

 

[siphra]

Oops you are right forgot second part share the profits too! That CEO and the shareholders get way too much return on the initial input! You wanna do business in my country the laws would not be made to favor business only!

What do you think corporations are created for? It's created to build profit for the shareholders and owners, there is NO OTHER REASON a corporation comes into existence. If you deny them that, they will simply, oh GO OVER SEAS, gee I don't see that happening anywhere.

 

[quinnsong]

What do you think corporations are created for? It's created to build profit for the shareholders and owners, there is NO OTHER REASON a corporation comes into existence. If you deny them that, they will simply, oh GO OVER SEAS, gee I don't see that happening anywhere.

Siphra, there is nothing you can show me or tell me that excuses the extreme profits that IMC makes! No need for a few people to make that much money, none! If laws were changed so more of profits would have to be shared w/ labour and corporations had no where else to run then they would have to change.

If they cannot share then f**k em!

 

[chimpkin]

What do you think corporations are created for? It's created to build profit for the shareholders and owners, there is NO OTHER REASON a corporation comes into existence. If you deny them that, they will simply, oh GO OVER SEAS, gee I don't see that happening anywhere.

Not if we restore trade barriers.

Considering that the American worker was a lot better off when we had trade barriers; that countries that practice protectionism do better economically, and that we keep hemorrhaging jobs every time we open a new free trade zone...

I think the answer is as clear as glass.

Basically, we can't compete directly against people who make 50 cents a day...and our government shouldn't be allowing those folks to compete against us directly.

Did you go read what Ian Fletcher wrote-those linked articles?

Please note he gets space on both right and left leaning sites, like Huffington Post and Hot Air.

I wouldn't consider him a liberal... I just think he's correct.

 

[quinnsong]

Not if we restore trade barriers.

Considering that the American worker was a lot better off when we had trade barriers; that countries that practice protectionism do better economically, and that we keep hemorrhaging jobs every time we open a new free trade zone...

I think the answer is as clear as glass.

Basically, we can't compete directly against people who make 50 cents a day...and our government shouldn't be allowing those folks to compete against us directly.

Did you go read what Ian Fletcher wrote-those linked articles?

Please note he gets space on both right and left leaning sites, like Huffington Post and Hot Air.

I wouldn't consider him a liberal... I just think he's correct.

Thx for info, I think you should start thread about free trade.

 

[chimpkin]

:shy:

I, um, feel like I need to buy/read the book first...and I think I need a transmission more...

 

[quinnsong]

:shy:

I, um, feel like I need to buy/read the book first...and I think I need a transmission more...

Hmm, books are good but cars are better! Maybe Billy T could I think I'll ask!

 

[siphra]

Siphra, there is nothing you can show me or tell me that excuses the extreme profits that IMC makes! No need for a few people to make that much money, none! If laws were changed so more of profits would have to be shared w/ labour and corporations had no where else to run then they would have to change.

If they cannot share then f**k em!

And why should they be forced to share, because in YOUR view of the world this is moral? Well in my view, wearing black and being forced into sodomy on a Tuesday is moral, so can we start with that?

'Yes, lets force everyone to obey MY principles !' --- That is the view point of everyone on your side, no respect for others whatsoever and you prove it with comments like this.

 

[siphra]

Not if we restore trade barriers.

Considering that the American worker was a lot better off when we had trade barriers; that countries that practice protectionism do better economically, and that we keep hemorrhaging jobs every time we open a new free trade zone...

I think the answer is as clear as glass.

Basically, we can't compete directly against people who make 50 cents a day...and our government shouldn't be allowing those folks to compete against us directly.

Did you go read what Ian Fletcher wrote-those linked articles?

Please note he gets space on both right and left leaning sites, like Huffington Post and Hot Air.

I wouldn't consider him a liberal... I just think he's correct.

Actually on trade barriers, I agree.