1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. Kimiko

    Kimiko Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    43,028
    How much evidence have you seen of this in the past three years? It sure doesn't show up in the income statistics. The rich are undeniably getting richer.
     
  2. Kimiko

    Kimiko Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    43,028
    You know that because Glenn Beck told you so, right?
     
  3. Kimiko

    Kimiko Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    43,028
    Aces is complaining.

    No.
     
  4. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,156
    Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter

    The New York Times November 23, 2010

    The nation’s workers may be struggling, but American companies just had their best quarter ever.

    American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago.

    *not_secure_link*www.nytimes.com/20...l=1&adxnnlx=1292428814-mW1Lly3IBSSZPFMbu8xHCA
     
  5. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,156
    This is comparable to saying that the United States followed the correct military strategy in Vietnam, but only lost because the American electorate turned against the war. I other words, it is a meaningless statement. Because the United States has a democratic government, public opinion must be taken into account.

    It was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting middle class entitlements most voters, including many Republican voters - and perhaps a majority even there - would have insisted on keeping. Consequently, "the nuts and bolts of Reagan's economic plan were" most assuredly not sound. :idea:
     
  6. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,085
    But the question is why are they getting richer?

    Is it because the US manufacturers are going great guns and producing more product than ever? Or is it because they have stopped investing their profits?

    When the opportunity to profit on an investment goes away, so do the the investors. When the US economy fails to produce, it is ultimately felt by the rich because they can no longer reap profits.

    You are witnessing a very bad sign for the economic health of the US.
     
  7. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,085
    DL, I am going to stop responding to your ridiculous analogies.
     
  8. RandyKnight

    RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    26,534
    How many times have you posted that in this thread?
     
  9. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,156
    No sh*t, Sherlock. :cool:

    This was also true in 2006. Keep in mind that in 2006 the Republicans had had majorities in both houses of Congress for eleven years, a Republican president for five years, and the Great Recession was not to begin for another year.

    "Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record with data going back to 1929.[1] The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record.[2]"
    *not_secure_link*www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=634

    This really is a "very bad sign for the economic health of the US," but the Republican mantra of, "lower taxes, less government," will only make things worse.

    What we are witnessing is what Karl Marx claimed was an inherent tendency of pre Keynesian capitalism. He said that this inherent tendency was to build wealth at the top while reducing the standard of living for most people. Marx did not predict Keynesian economic policies. However, as we are moving away from Keynesianism, capitalism is once again behaving the way Marx described.

    In the Communist Manifesto Marx wrote: "The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."
    *not_secure_link*www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

    Marx seems to be describing the pauperization of America's middle class. This has been accelerating since the recession of 1974. It seems to happen faster under Republican presidents, although President Obama's fairly tepid policies have not stopped it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2010
  10. Kimiko

    Kimiko Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    43,028
    Duh.
     
  11. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,085
    Great response.:cool:
     
  12. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,156
    Every time I needed to make a point.
     
  13. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,156
    Comment #289 was better.
     
  14. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,085
    But only in your mind.
     
  15. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,156
    I ought to stop responding to your ridiculous efforts to justify Reagan's economic policies, but I can't help myself. Your arguments are so preposterous, they beg to be refuted.

    In the 1980 campaign Reagan campaigned on a promise to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting middle class entitlements. Reagan was stupid enough that he may have believed that that was possible. No reputable economist did, and it turned out to be impossible.
     
  16. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,085
    Since what you just posted was not some ridiculous analogy, I will respond.

    For the most part, economists did not call Reagan's plan nutty or undoable. They do now because the reality that the Congress was not going to cut spending is now well known.

    There is no reason to believe that it was a plan that could have been successful, IF, and that is a big if, the Congress would agree to make unpopular decisions.

    You yourself claim that the American people would not allow their Congressmen to do it without punishing them at reelection time.

    So in my mind, the only way to make those needed cut is to not worry about the reelectability and let the chips fall where they may. Now is the time for term limits and campaign finance reform that really matters.
     
  17. Kimiko

    Kimiko Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    43,028
    The problem is that the Reagan approach, and the one followed dutifully by Republicans ever since, was to cut revenue without ever confronting the issue of what programs to cut. It is dishonest at its core. If they want to cut government, let them tell us what they plan to cut, and see if the public likes it.

    Sooner or later, it's necessary to face the facts: if the public wants programs that benefit them, they have to be willing to pay for them.
     
  18. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,156
    What you are saying is that politicians have a moral obligation to pursue policies that you approve of, and which benefit the rich, even though they are unpopular. Affluent Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who earn less than $50,000 a year in insecure jobs that provide little or nothing in health and retirement benefits. The Democratic Party lost the white working class because of social issues pertaining to race rather than because American white blue collar workers became so affluent they no longer needed or wanted New Deal reforms.

    In his book The Triumph of Politics David Stockman made it clear that Reagan never promoted domestic spending cuts on the scale that would have been necessary to avoid the huge budget deficits of his administration. One after another Republican Congressional representatives would come to Stockman and say in effect, "I am in favor of what you are doing, but do not cut this program. A lot of good folks benefit from this program." By "good folks" they meant, "folks who vote for me."

    Because Reagan's economic policies required unpopular domestic spending cuts that Reagan never specified, those policies were fraudulent.

    The Democratic Party is committed to promoting government spending programs that benefit those who are not rich. Democrats in Congress had no obligation to reduce or eliminate domestic spending programs that were popular with their constituents, and which they had spent their political careers promoting and expanding. The fault of individual Democrats was to vote for tax cuts for the rich and an increases in the military budget that were unnecessary.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2010
  19. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,156
    :):):):):):):):):):):):):)
     
  20. Kimiko

    Kimiko Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    43,028
    Thank you.

    In case you haven't noticed, today's capitalists don't care about producing anything, they don't care about selling anything, they don't care about stockholders. They care about their personal wealth accumulation. And they're doing fine. Unfortunately, their interests don't align with the interests of the nation's best interests.