Thank You Democrats/Communist -US state wants to tax TVs, video games to fight fat

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

What is the worst case scenario of this trend?

Um... all wealth in the hands of few? Why not just have a monarchy?

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Um... all wealth in the hands of few? Why not just have a monarchy?

Think about it...Is this even possible? Where do the CEO's get their wealth from?

[DodgerKing]

This is something I cannot let go without challenging.

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Our media channels are utterly fucked. They are owned by huge conglomerates and they control what information is delivered to consumers. Just look at talk radio for example. Our country right now is increasingly moving left of center. Yet, talk radio is dominated by conservative talk. Like 10:1 dominated. And our country is certainly not 10:1 conservative vs liberal. Probably more like 5:5 or 4:6 with more moderates leaning left.

I agree that most of radio and TV is owned by a few companies. But, the difference between Conservative and Liberal Talk has little to do with this fact. These companies are still competing with each other for ratings. Any ratings vacuum will create great profit opportunity. If 90% of all talk radio is Conservative and yet half the population is liberal, then why wouldn't one of these companies try to fill this hole? After all, this is a large portion of the population that is not represented by talk radio.

Short answer is ratings. Companies, as I am sure you would agree, care more about one issue than any other, making a profit. Companies exists for one main reason, which is a good reason btw, to make a profit. If ratings for left talk have the potential to be just as high or even higher and one talk radio company can exploit this, even if it is lower, then they should profit greatly.

Enter, Air America to fill this void. Even with this liberal talk radio, their ratings are still dismal and are not even close to competing with most of the other conservative talk radio programs in just about all of the large media markets.

Even while the fairness doctrine was in full effect, conservative talk shows vastly drew a higher average audience than that of the more liberal shows. (I am speaking of politically oriented shows, not the shock shows).

In short, the disparity has little to do with ownership, but more to do with ratings.

Another example would be the news. Notice how during these presidential campaigns, the candidates who've raised the most money were the ones who got 95% of the media coverage? Rudy Guliani was always the #1 Republican candidate in all media coverage, and the bum placed 6th in just about every state. Now he's done. Why? Because he raised a ton of money: money that would be spent on advertisements with these media companies.

I am confused by your point here. Even though media coverage and money may be correlated, obviously success is not. There are also those that raise a lot of money, with little media support and little public support (i.e. Ron Paul). In addition, McCain whom is currently the front runner for the Reps, was short on money for a while, now is raising a lot, and still receiving about the same amount of media coverage.

Point is, without perfect information being delivered to consumers, large corporations are allowed to exploit consumers. According to laissez-faire economics, if a corporation operates against the interests of the consumer, consumers will not buy their products. But that certainly isn't the case in America right now, is it?

You are good at presenting apagogical arguments.

Exploit? We do not have choices or options? From the information I presented I think our current system gives consumers exactly what they want. Let's for argument sake say they don't, doesn't regulation only contribute to this factor?

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Exploit? We do not have choices or options? From the information I presented I think our current system gives consumers exactly what they want. Let's for argument sake say they don't, doesn't regulation only contribute to this factor?

Regulation has it's merits. And, one can't be the voice for big business and get any sympathy from the general public.

Just this week Exxon recorded the highest profit ever for any kind of business. This in the face of higher gas prices and tax incentives.

Left unchecked, businesses would exploit the environment and the people as well.

I find it outrageous this great country cannot find alternative means to the oil and gas engines that run our vehicles.

I believe they can. I believe it is the powerful oil and automaking businesses that have kept this at bay.

Lack of regulation of the auto industry has also allowed for gas guzzling SUVs and other vehicles to dominate the industry.

One can say they are catering to the people but lets not be stupid.

The people can be duped, lied to and taken advantage of.

Don't think so? Look at supersizing of our food industry.

We are creating a generation of fat people who will have more health problems and die sooner.

A coke at Mcdonalds is 49 cents for 60 oz. Now tell me, who needs a 60 oz coke?

How about the 6 dollar burger? Or the 8 pieces of bacon in Wendy's burger?

Supersize is encouraged and the people believe it to be safe.

Give the customer what he wants? Sure.

Better yet, educate the customer.

Oh, and, talk radio and right wing garbage? Again, there is so much of it bombarding the air waves people start believing it.

The tactic is fear mongering and hate.

Watch out for the gay agenda. All Mexicans are illegals and they will take what you have.

The Bush administration is moral and honest.

You lie and lie and lie and sadly, people believe it when they hear it over and over again.

That's the reality.

[rbinck]

I get tickled every quarter when the EOM profits are released. They always report the amount of the profit, but never the percentage. Well, some of the business channels do and it is about 9%. Now people get all bent over the "record" profits, but not so much as a peep about the amount of tax the consumer pays on the same products. Take gasoline with an average tax of about 50 cents per gallon. On $3 per gasoline that's 16% or double what the profit is. So if Exxon-Mobil reports a 35 billion dollar profit, that also represents 70 billion in taxes! But not a peep about that.

[DodgerKing]

Ramble much? It is easier to have a discussion if we focus on a few (preferably one) issue. Shock and Awe is not a good debating strategy.

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

Regulation has it's merits. And, one can't be the voice for big business and get any sympathy from the general public.

Sure they can. They are not mutually exclusive. Each is dependent on the other.

Just this week Exxon recorded the highest profit ever for any kind of business. This in the face of higher gas prices and tax incentives.

Good. Which means that they are doing what they are supposed to do, make a profit. What is their profit percentage, compared to other companies?

Left unchecked, businesses would exploit the environment and the people as well.

No business has ever done anything to protect the environment without the government telling them to do so?

Two points: I will agree that many businesses will exploit resources and the environment as many have already done so. I also see businesses suffer from doing so due to immoral practices. Costumers will often neglect companies that do such things.

Exploiting costumers I have to disagree. Costumers have choice and only let themselves become victims of their own choices. More often than not, exploitation comes from governments (of which there is not other choice), not businesses (of which in a free market, there are other choices).
[quote]
I find it outrageous this great country cannot find alternative means to the oil and gas engines that run our vehicles.[./quote]
Like all technologies, it takes time. Currently many things have been proposed and invented, but have not met the efficiency and affordability for many. All great inventions come about through entrepreneurial free market competition. Glad the government wasn't around to regulated the black smith business during the invention of the automobile by entrepreneurs like Ford or the candle business by entrepreneurs like Franklin.

I believe they can. I believe it is the powerful oil and automaking businesses that have kept this at bay.

Perhaps. Fortunately in our capitalists society, many entrepreneurs are working hard, competing with one another, to become the next "Big Oil" or next the "Henry Ford".

Lack of regulation of the auto industry has also allowed for gas guzzling SUVs and other vehicles to dominate the industry.

No, consumer choice has allowed those, such as myself, to choose a vehicle that serves specific purposes, such as towing a trailer, hauling supplies, and traveling through snow on mountain rodes. I am greatful the Government regulation did not create a situation which gives me fewer vehicle's to choose from and make the truck I need very unfordable. It is the same free market competition with consumer choice that allows companies to compete for the more fuel economy vehicles as well. Prius owners should be happy that the government did not put regulations on the making of the environmentally unfriendly battery packs placed in these cars.

Besides, SUV's and Trucks combined represent about 51% of all new car sales and still represent much less than half of all of the vehicles on the road. In 2007 there were 8,269,351 trucks and SUVs sold, out of a total of 16,153,952 vehicles. SUV's include vehicles such as the CRV and Element, which I would never place in the same category as trucks.

One can say they are catering to the people but lets not be stupid.

The people can be duped, lied to and taken advantage of.

Don't think so? Look at supersizing of our food industry.

We are creating a generation of fat people who will have more health problems and die sooner.

A coke at Mcdonalds is 49 cents for 60 oz. Now tell me, who needs a 60 oz coke?

How about the 6 dollar burger? Or the 8 pieces of bacon in Wendy's burger?

Supersize is encouraged and the people believe it to be safe.

Give the customer what he wants? Sure.

Better yet, educate the customer.

I know, people are dumb, the government is smarter? They know what is best and they must make decisions for consumers? Too bad it is these same consumers that vote for these decision makers as well...

Oh, and, talk radio and right wing garbage? Again, there is so much of it bombarding the air waves people start believing it.

Perhaps? Too bad liberal talk was not able to do the same... I wonder why more people listen to "right wing garbage" than listen to Air America?

The tactic is fear mongering and hate.

Watch out for the gay agenda. All Mexicans are illegals and they will take what you have.

The Bush administration is moral and honest.

You lie and lie and lie and sadly, people believe it when they hear it over and over again.

That's the reality.

I know, the same government that you want regulating the private sector, educating people, and making decisions for people, are also liars? Do you or don't you trust them?

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by rbinck

I get tickled every quarter when the EOM profits are released. They always report the amount of the profit, but never the percentage. Well, some of the business channels do and it is about 9%. Now people get all bent over the "record" profits, but not so much as a peep about the amount of tax the consumer pays on the same products. Take gasoline with an average tax of about 50 cents per gallon. On $3 per gasoline that's 16% or double what the profit is. So if Exxon-Mobil reports a 35 billion dollar profit, that also represents 70 billion in taxes! But not a peep about that.

Which is why I asked the question about profit percentage in my previous post. Of course those that sale a lot of a product are going to make a large net profit. There are many more industries that make a larger profit in terms of percentage than Exxon Mobile.

They also tend to ignore profit compared to current GDP as well as gas prices compared to the current value of the dollar (adjusted for inflation). In 1950 gas was around 30 cents a gallon, which in todays dollars would be slightly over $3.00/gallon.

[Pistol Pete]

[quote=DodgerKing;513683]Ramble much? It is easier to have a discussion if we focus on a few (preferably one) issue. Shock and Awe is not a good debating strategy.
Sure they can. They are not mutually exclusive. Each is dependent on the other.

Good. Which means that they are doing what they are supposed to do, make a profit. What is their profit percentage, compared to other companies?

No business has ever done anything to protect the environment without the government telling them to do so?

Two points: I will agree that many businesses will exploit resources and the environment as many have already done so. I also see businesses suffer from doing so due to immoral practices. Costumers will often neglect companies that do such things.

Exploiting costumers I have to disagree. Costumers have choice and only let themselves become victims of their own choices. More often than not, exploitation comes from governments (of which there is not other choice), not businesses (of which in a free market, there are other choices).

I find it outrageous this great country cannot find alternative means to the oil and gas engines that run our vehicles.[./quote]
Like all technologies, it takes time. Currently many things have been proposed and invented, but have not met the efficiency and affordability for many. All great inventions come about through entrepreneurial free market competition. Glad the government wasn't around to regulated the black smith business during the invention of the automobile by entrepreneurs like Ford or the candle business by entrepreneurs like Franklin.

Perhaps. Fortunately in our capitalists society, many entrepreneurs are working hard, competing with one another, to become the next "Big Oil" or next the "Henry Ford".

No, consumer choice has allowed those, such as myself, to choose a vehicle that serves specific purposes, such as towing a trailer, hauling supplies, and traveling through snow on mountain rodes. I am greatful the Government regulation did not create a situation which gives me fewer vehicle's to choose from and make the truck I need very unfordable. It is the same free market competition with consumer choice that allows companies to compete for the more fuel economy vehicles as well. Prius owners should be happy that the government did not put regulations on the making of the environmentally unfriendly battery packs placed in these cars.

Besides, SUV's and Trucks combined represent about 51% of all new car sales and still represent much less than half of all of the vehicles on the road. In 2007 there were 8,269,351 trucks and SUVs sold, out of a total of 16,153,952 vehicles. SUV's include vehicles such as the CRV and Element, which I would never place in the same category as trucks.

I know, people are dumb, the government is smarter? They know what is best and they must make decisions for consumers? Too bad it is these same consumers that vote for these decision makers as well...

Perhaps? Too bad liberal talk was not able to do the same... I wonder why more people listen to "right wing garbage" than listen to Air America?

I know, the same government that you want regulating the private sector, educating people, and making decisions for people, are also liars? Do you or don't you trust them?

Funny thing about politics, like sports, once you have that mindset and passion, it's impossible to change it.

You the Dodger fan, me the Padre fan. Can we sway each other? Unlikely.

Same thing with political views.

You can sidestep and pick and choose which parts of a subject fit your need.

Like the Air America thing. Since you don't understand the liberal mind, you have your own spin on why Air America dosn't fly.

The conservative movement is emboldered by the Religious Right who have preachers at the congregations, on television and on radio sprout their messages of hate and discontent.

They bombard their constituants with these messages and empower them to be crusaders for their cause.

These causes are fascistic in nature with hate mongering for gays and lesbians, pro choice people and with intent to turn this government into a Christian government with Christian teachings to all the masses.

The major television stations are owned by big business Republicans who often use their air ways as a pulpit for their own interests.

What's a guy to do? We can't change Fox news for example.

Liberals are from all corners of society. They have better things to do then congregate with people and organize lessons of hate and intolerance.

And, don't think for one second the people cannot be fooled or duped.

They are.

Do I trust the government? Are you kidding me? Does anyone?

I'll tell you this, I trust the Democrats more. The list of corruptibles and those who have done more to damage this country is filled with Republican names.

That my friend is fact.

Now reading your posts, I doubt you to be a Christian conservative. However, you certainly are one who has issues with taxes and love big business.

So be it. More power to you.

But don't think us who would rather see programs that help the poor and the needy, the disenfranchised and forgotten seem idiotic.

That would be wrong and incorrect.

[DodgerKing]

Again, you are throwing way too many things out there at one time. I understand your passion. But please, let's focus on one issue for now, it makes it easier for both of us. I will give you the courtesy to pick what you would like to discuss.

ETA: Let me also add...Trust me when I say I have heard everything both of you have posted many many many times before, over and over again.

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

This is something I cannot let go without challenging.

I agree that most of radio and TV is owned by a few companies. But, the difference between Conservative and Liberal Talk has little to do with this fact. These companies are still competing with each other for ratings. Any ratings vacuum will create great profit opportunity. If 90% of all talk radio is Conservative and yet half the population is liberal, then why wouldn't one of these companies try to fill this hole? After all, this is a large portion of the population that is not represented by talk radio.

Short answer is ratings. Companies, as I am sure you would agree, care more about one issue than any other, making a profit. Companies exists for one main reason, which is a good reason btw, to make a profit. If ratings for left talk have the potential to be just as high or even higher and one talk radio company can exploit this, even if it is lower, then they should profit greatly.

Enter, Air America to fill this void. Even with this liberal talk radio, their ratings are still dismal and are not even close to competing with most of the other conservative talk radio programs in just about all of the large media markets.

Even while the fairness doctrine was in full effect, conservative talk shows vastly drew a higher average audience than that of the more liberal shows. (I am speaking of politically oriented shows, not the shock shows).

In short, the disparity has little to do with ownership, but more to do with ratings.

I am confused by your point here. Even though media coverage and money may be correlated, obviously success is not. There are also those that raise a lot of money, with little media support and little public support (i.e. Ron Paul). In addition, McCain whom is currently the front runner for the Reps, was short on money for a while, now is raising a lot, and still receiving about the same amount of media coverage.

You are good at presenting apagogical arguments.

Exploit? We do not have choices or options? From the information I presented I think our current system gives consumers exactly what they want. Let's for argument sake say they don't, doesn't regulation only contribute to this factor?

Your answers reflect that of someone who hasn't looked deeply into any of these issues. I'm not going to sit down and teach you politics and economics just so we can have a coherent debate.

Besides, why are you still talking to me? Didn't I make it clear in the other thread that I don't want to talk to you anymore?

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Again, you are throwing way too many things out there at one time. I understand your passion. But please, let's focus on one issue for now, it makes it easier for both of us. I will give you the courtesy to pick what you would like to discuss.

ETA: Let me also add...Trust me when I say I have heard everything both of you have posted many many many times before, over and over again.

And, you still don't get it.

Do this for me will you?

Stop by a homeless shelter and spend the day there working with the staff as a volunteer.

Drive by the streets where the homeless congregate and sleep at night.

Visit a nursing home.

It is easy for us to think about me, me and me. It is much more meaningful for us to think about others.

There are so many without hope and opportunity. Liberals work to create hope, provide education and opportunity for these people.

Do we stop there? No.

Protecting the environment so there is clean air to breathe and water to drink is a goal that is not for liberals but for all people and preserving the future for our children and children's childlren.

Working to promote tolerance for all is another of our goals. Gays, lesbians, people of color and ethnicities are not second class citizens.

They too should be able to enjoy the right to privacy and be able to pursue the rights guaranteed in the constitution of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All I have heard you and others from the other side talk about is me, me, me and me.

My taxes, my this, my right to and my right to.

There is a difference. One is self centered and selfish. The other, caring and kind.

I would rather be the latter.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Your answers reflect that of someone who hasn't looked deeply into any of these issues. I'm not going to sit down and teach you politics and economics just so we can have a coherent debate.

Besides, why are you still talking to me? Didn't I make it clear in the other thread that I don't want to talk to you anymore?

Interesting considering you have yet to demonstrate to anyone here that you know anything at all about economics.

But, I understand why you bailed out. The easiest thing to do when I challenged to present facts is to not do so. The easiest thing to do when facts are presented to contradict another's claim is for that person to simply attack the challenger by saying they simply don't understand ________________. I presented accurate information supported by actual evidence and statistics. You simply ignored them. I challenged most of your points, and you simply attack me for doing so. A few examples:

1. First you made the claim that I said I don't listen to Olberman, I proved you wrong there and you brush it under the table.

2. You make the claim that Reps are generally perceived as being racists and it is known historically, thus justifying Rhodes rant. You fail to present any evidence to support your argument. I present the argument that this false assertion and I even presented some historical facts of Reps doing significant things (to a greater extent than the Dems), such as the voting record on Civil Rights, Emancipation. ex, and the current Bush cabinet makeup and you ignore it.

3. You make the claim that talk radio is dominated by Right Wingers due to media conglomeration. I make the argument that it is more due to ratings, and even presented rating numbers to support my argument, and you ignore this as well.

And you have yet to provide any sort of support for any of your claims. If you really believe that I know nothing about economics (which I happen to teach as part of my math curriculum btw) or history, then demonstrate such by challenging me or even supporting your assertions.

ETA: I am also still waiting for the list of O-Reilly inaccuracies you said you have from Thursday's episode...

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Interesting considering you have yet to demonstrate to anyone here that you know anything at all about economics.

But, I understand why you bailed out. The easiest thing to do when I challenged to present facts is to not do so. The easiest thing to do when facts are presented to contradict another's claim is for that person to simply attack the challenger by saying they simply don't understand ________________. I presented accurate information supported by actual evidence and statistics. You simply ignored them. I challenged most of your points, and you simply attack me for doing so. A few examples:

1. First you made the claim that I said I don't listen to Olberman, I proved you wrong there and you brush it under the table.

2. You make the claim that Reps are generally perceived as being racists and it is known historically, thus justifying Rhodes rant. You fail to present any evidence to support your argument. I present the argument that this false assertion and I even presented some historical facts of Reps doing significant things (to a greater extent than the Dems), such as the voting record on Civil Rights, Emancipation. ex, and the current Bush cabinet makeup and you ignore it.

3. You make the claim that talk radio is dominated by Right Wingers due to media conglomeration. I make the argument that it is more due to ratings, and even presented rating numbers to support my argument, and you ignore this as well.

And you have yet to provide any sort of support for any of your claims. If you really believe that I know nothing about economics (which I happen to teach as part of my math curriculum btw) or history, then demonstrate such by challenging me or even supporting your assertions.

I don't read your posts! I'm not going to! Stop talking to me!

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

And, you still don't get it.

Do this for me will you?

Stop by a homeless shelter and spend the day there working with the staff as a volunteer.

Drive by the streets where the homeless congregate and sleep at night.

Visit a nursing home.

It is easy for us to think about me, me and me. It is much more meaningful for us to think about others.

There are so many without hope and opportunity. Liberals work to create hope, provide education and opportunity for these people.

Do we stop there? No.

Protecting the environment so there is clean air to breathe and water to drink is a goal that is not for liberals but for all people and preserving the future for our children and children's childlren.

Working to promote tolerance for all is another of our goals. Gays, lesbians, people of color and ethnicities are not second class citizens.

They too should be able to enjoy the right to privacy and be able to pursue the rights guaranteed in the constitution of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All I have heard you and others from the other side talk about is me, me, me and me.

My taxes, my this, my right to and my right to.

There is a difference. One is self centered and selfish. The other, caring and kind.

I would rather be the latter.

I do get it. I understand the differences between Lib/Cons and Dem/Rep and I understand why you prefer the lib/Dem philosophy. Every one of your post list about 10 different topics of discussion, including this last post. If you really want to discuss differences, let's try to focus on one issue at a time. Again, I will let you pick which one you want to discuss. In the process, I will even tell you why I am more of a free market, limited government, capitalists, states rights, libertarian(some what), AKA Federalists, and I will even explain why I believe, with supporting evidence, that the limited government approach is better for MOST of the issues we face today and faced in the past.

From this particular post, I take it, you want to discuss the issue of charity and the government as well as the private sector role in charity? In addition, which is deemed as selfish? Am I correct? If so, I would love to do so....

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

I don't read your posts! I'm not going to! Stop talking to me!

That is obvious....

Fine. Then stop responding.

I can tell you this: Any future post in which you present information that I believe is wrong, misleading, or lacking in facts or supporting evidence, I will challenge you to step up to the plate and support your claims, as I hope you do with me.