I find threads like this very enlightening.
It's nice to know what people really think, because when it comes down to it, it's not about extolling the virtues of rugged individualism, or harping on the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mantra.
It's just another excuse to talk crap about poor minorities.
Oh, please. If minorities weren't so disproportionately represented you'd hear nothing. Cliche's become cliche's because there is a strong element of broad truth in them. Just like your comment that remittances are "defacto" welfare for the Dominican Republic show a certain bias toward a given sector of the Dominican population and hold an element of truth...but is not fully accurate: because "not all" participate in a given activity doesn't mean a disporportionate number don't.
Berzin said:
I wonder out loud when people make ignorant, untrue comments about Puerto Ricans and others being nothing but welfare cheats why they never once mention the billions of dollars of corporate welfare Fortune 500 companies routinely lobby for and receive, our tax dollars freely given to the very corporations that are running this country into the ground and sending all of our manufacturing jobs to Asia and Mexico so they can increase their profit margins.
Exactly what "corporate welfare" programs are you against, Berzin? When were they passed and what are the names of the legislation?
I can name specific transfer payment "welfare" programs. Can you name specific "corporate welfrare" programs?
Berzin said:
Or how it is that a company can get away with using an offshore mailing address to evade federal taxes while still maintaining a corporate presence right here in the good ol' US of A.
I dunno. Maybe buried somewhere in the 71,684 pages of IRS code making such actions 100% legal?
Let me ask you a question: where does the computer manufacturer Lenovo (formerly the IBM PC dividion, sold to a Chinese corporation) exist and where should it pay taxes? Their corporate HQ is in NC, but they have fewer than 30 people working there. Their largest offices are in Hong Kong and Singapore. Their R&D is in China and Japan. Their sales offices are in Paris, China and Singapore. Their manufacturing plants are in China, the US, India and Mexico. Their BoD has 7 Chinese, 5 Americans, an Aussie and a Czech.
And the REASON jobs are "shipped overseas" is because of onerous labor costs, taxation and regulations in the USA, all gubmint caused, no doubt with the best of intentions by concerned legislators.
That laptop you use? Not US manufactured. That TV and entertainment equipment? Not US made. The clothes you wear? Not US made. That nice camera equipment? Not US made. Your car? Guaranteed, most of it not made in the US. YOU are as much responsible for those jobes "shipped overseas" as I am because you, as a consumer, seek to maximize your purchasing power and companies seek to fill your demand. Just as we all do.WE created the market, companied meet our demand.
When you use all US manufactured goods, foods and clothes, THEN you stand on moral high ground about eeeeeevil "corporations shipping jobs overseas."
It's a global economy. Economic protectionists haven't figured that out yet.
Berzin said:
Oh, I know why. Because when it's a white man in a suit, it's not handouts or cheating-it's true Ayn Rand capitalism at it's most succinct. When it's a poverty stricken child of color, or someone who just so happens to find themselves temporarily down on their luck, it's welfare. And welfare is berry berry bad. Especially for all those lazy Puerto Rican welfare cheats.
Like I said, these threads are always very illuminating and really get at the heart of what people really think.
Yes. Now we know the heart of what people really think...and frankly I'm surprised. I never realized you harbored such anger toward white people...
BTW: Rand was totally against any gubmint involvement with the creation of wealth, so your "capitalism at it's most succinct" comment could not be more inaccurate vis-a-vis "handouts". And she wrote hundreds of pages about the character of man, and the importance of honor even in the face of oppression. Obviously you've not read Rand because if you had you'd not have made such an innacurate statement.