My letter to Bush and officials

[r8ed]

I got an email from Party Poker Alliance (oops, Poker Players Alliance). It mentioned I could email elected officials to combat them banning online poker. I usually don't do those things but I figured I could vent a little. So, I sent this letter (email) via their site. It went to Bush 3 state reps. This kind of dumb, but I think they should focus on bigger issues, rather than babysitting us. Here it is:

What is the reason behind banning online poker? I assume to protect US consumers from foreign entities that the US cannot regulate nor prosecute? No matter what you do, US citizens will find a way around it. This puts US consumers at greater risks as they go through other less secure channels to pay and play. People like to gamble. People play Keno. Why not shut that down? Why not shut church bingo down?

I prefer the officials I elect to focus on real issues and not police or babysit adults. One issues that deserves full attention:
Outsourcing US jobs so big companies and execs make money while the middle and lower class suffer. I'm a computer programmer currently. Will I be able to say that in 3 years? Probably not. Hopefully I'll be good enough at online poker to make a living by then. I don't know how you guys can look in the mirror every day and think you have any integrity. No matter who we vote for, we lose. At one point I though Bush was a good moral person. Boy was I fooled. You give incentives to big companies to hire foreign labor to produce goods to sell back to the people you took jobs from. This whole UAE port management is insane. Nevermind the fact that they are terror supporters, but why outsource OUR ports to a foreign owned business? Why was a british company doing this in the first place? What the heck is wrong with you people?

[ProZachNation]

Nothing pisses me off more than the goverment allowing big companies to outsource jobs while giving them tax breaks.

[gabe]

Nothing pisses me off more than the goverment allowing big companies to outsource jobs while giving them tax breaks.

really? i mean that might piss you off, but nothing pisses you off more than that???

[r8ed]

I'm sick of getting 300 blank checks from my bank in the mail weekly that I have to shred too. Damn...I should have mentioned that too.

[Phantaroth]

Outsourcing jobs is alright, the government shouldn't take measures to stop it from occouring.

But they shouldn't ban poker either.

What they should do is either decrease minimum wage disallow trade with foreigh countries that do not meet our working-saftey/pay requirements.

[boost]

Outsourcing jobs is alright, the government shouldn't take measures to stop it from occouring.

But they shouldn't ban poker either.

What they should do is either decrease minimum wage disallow trade with foreigh countries that do not meet our working-saftey/pay requirements.

you cant decrease minimum wage. This is not a solution to the problem at all. Really.. if youre a poor highschool kid that wants a part time job, its not in anyway worth it to work for 3$ an hour. Minimum wage in comparison to living expenses already makes little sense. Its a fucked up cycle but it would be very hard to change the way things are. If you lower wages here, then the people making the products cant afford the products. If you just bring manufacturing back here at current wages, only upper class people will be able to afford a buick. Theres just no easy fix to this problem.

[ProZachNation]

Nothing pisses me off more than the goverment allowing big companies to outsource jobs while giving them tax breaks.

really? i mean that might piss you off, but nothing pisses you off more than that???

Actually its pretty close, like if osmone killed my mom I would get pissed off more or if I was in a relationship and the girl fucked some guy. But like day to day issues any time I see it on the news or here outsourcing it pisses me off. Sorta sucks being like what do I want to do my entire life and be liek ohh cannt do that and that because those people wont exist in America anymore soon.

[journey075]

lol, do any of you understand economics enough to understand that outsourcing is hugely +ev? if you dont understand basic opportunity cost and comparative advantage read up first.

outsourced labor translates into a plethora of benefits for you and unless youre the one getting laid off it is entirely positive. its great for firms, consumers and the economy in general.

im not sure about you, but i never shopped (paying a premium) in local mom and pop stores in order to keep them alive. ill prefer a price cutting chain any day. if you are the same then the entire thread is an exercise in hypocrisy.

[r8ed]

lol, do any of you understand economics enough to understand that outsourcing is hugely +ev? if you dont understand basic opportunity cost and comparative advantage read up first.

outsourced labor translates into a plethora of benefits for you and unless youre the one getting laid off it is entirely positive. its great for firms, consumers and the economy in general.

im not sure about you, but i never shopped (paying a premium) in local mom and pop stores in order to keep them alive. ill prefer a price cutting chain any day. if you are the same then the entire thread is an exercise in hypocrisy.

Break it down for me because you're obviously light years ahead of everyone else on this topic. What about the impact unemployment has on the economy? Bottom line is the only ones who benefit are corporate execs. Trickle-down economics doesn't trickle down past the upper management of large companies. I'll wait for Bush to explain it. He's good at articulating himself when he's not reading off a cue card somebody else wrote for him.

[Demiparadigm]

lol, do any of you understand economics enough to understand that outsourcing is hugely +ev? if you dont understand basic opportunity cost and comparative advantage read up first.

outsourced labor translates into a plethora of benefits for you and unless youre the one getting laid off it is entirely positive. its great for firms, consumers and the economy in general.

im not sure about you, but i never shopped (paying a premium) in local mom and pop stores in order to keep them alive. ill prefer a price cutting chain any day. if you are the same then the entire thread is an exercise in hypocrisy.

I was waiting for journey to chime in...

I was about to jump into the debate, but then I realized jfish had my back.

Good luck homie.

FWIW, I don't think even jfish has the patience to explain simple economic theory, but the fact is, as unfortunate the idea may be for socialist minded people, we should encourage outsourcing, and get rid of the minimum wage.
Yes, it sucks for those directly afected, but it is better for the economy, and the population as a whole.
We would also, unfortunately, be better off without welfare, social security or medicare.

cest la vie.

[Phantaroth]

I don't think it must be a completley un-interupted market, but people do need to realize America can't have free health care, good paying jobs, and no taxes...

That's why politicans suck ass. "I SHALL LOWER TAXES... AND GIVE YOU ALL GOOD THINGS!"

Of course that is great but people don't realize how negative our economic policy is in the long run.

[bigred]

Don't think anyone said anything about uninterupted markets. Yay for fiscal policy.

[journey075]

lol, do any of you understand economics enough to understand that outsourcing is hugely +ev? if you dont understand basic opportunity cost and comparative advantage read up first.

outsourced labor translates into a plethora of benefits for you and unless youre the one getting laid off it is entirely positive. its great for firms, consumers and the economy in general.

im not sure about you, but i never shopped (paying a premium) in local mom and pop stores in order to keep them alive. ill prefer a price cutting chain any day. if you are the same then the entire thread is an exercise in hypocrisy.

Break it down for me because you're obviously light years ahead of everyone else on this topic. What about the impact unemployment has on the economy? Bottom line is the only ones who benefit are corporate execs. Trickle-down economics doesn't trickle down past the upper management of large companies. I'll wait for Bush to explain it. He's good at articulating himself when he's not reading off a cue card somebody else wrote for him.

hahahahahah, the only people that benefit from outsourcing are fat-cat execs. hahahahahhahaha.

thanks for enlightening me.

edit: your arguments are inane, im not even sure what youre arguing in the second half of your "retort." you do realize no president writes his own speeches right? also, your brilliant trickle-down economics theory is groundbreaking, except there are more people involved than just executives and employees. ever stopped to consider the consumer? no? okay.

edit2: unemployment has no effect on the economy. ever hear of whatever that retarded coffee wage thing they have? where you pay a bit more for coffee, but can sleep well at night because the workers who harvested that coffee were paid better wages or some shit? well consumers only have a limited amount of $ to spend on coffee (and more specifically at certain prices) and if all coffee laborers are to be paid a minimum wage acceptable by american standards, then there will exist a ton of unemployment. while it is true that those who have jobs will live comfortably, there will be many without them and this is entirely stupid because these workers are WILLING and would be HAPPY to work for less.

when a computer programmer gets laid off from a firm (say hes making 100k a year before he was laid off) and the outsourced job goes to india (where the programmer is paid 20k a year), the american programmer can get a lot of lower paying jobs in america. its not like hes confined to be unemployed for the rest of his life. if he feels like a 40k a year job is not worth his time then the marginal value of his working is worth more to him than the relative price of him working and therefore if he chooses to be unemployed he is actually more satisfied (than if he worked full time at a lower paying job) because he reaps the benefits of more leisure time.

[journey075]

lol, do any of you understand economics enough to understand that outsourcing is hugely +ev? if you dont understand basic opportunity cost and comparative advantage read up first.

outsourced labor translates into a plethora of benefits for you and unless youre the one getting laid off it is entirely positive. its great for firms, consumers and the economy in general.

im not sure about you, but i never shopped (paying a premium) in local mom and pop stores in order to keep them alive. ill prefer a price cutting chain any day. if you are the same then the entire thread is an exercise in hypocrisy.

I was waiting for journey to chime in...

I was about to jump into the debate, but then I realized jfish had my back.

Good luck homie.

FWIW, I don't think even jfish has the patience to explain simple economic theory, but the fact is, as unfortunate the idea may be for socialist minded people, we should encourage outsourcing, and get rid of the minimum wage.
Yes, it sucks for those directly afected, but it is better for the economy, and the population as a whole.
We would also, unfortunately, be better off without welfare, social security or medicare.

cest la vie.

haha i got your back dog. laissez-faire fo life.

[krimson]

unemployment has no effect on the economy.

This is a very odd statement. I can hardly think of any interpretation of the terms "no", "effect" and "economy" that makes this true.

when a computer programmer gets laid off from a firm (say hes making 100k a year before he was laid off) and the outsourced job goes to india (where the programmer is paid 20k a year), the american programmer can get a lot of lower paying jobs in america. its not like hes confined to be unemployed for the rest of his life. if he feels like a 40k a year job is not worth his time then the marginal value of his working is worth more to him than the relative price of him working and therefore if he chooses to be unemployed he is actually more satisfied (than if he worked full time at a lower paying job) because he reaps the benefits of more leisure time.

This example seems very poorly chosen to me. Even I (a dyed-in-the-red communist) can see that outsourcing has benefits in some cases, but the example above does not illustrate it particularly well. If we assume (somewhat stereotypically perhaps) that North Americans are more skilled than Asians then outsourcing unskilled tasks to Asia is a good thing if it then allows the newly-unemplyed Americans to take up work that makes better use of their skills. The result is a total increase in productivity by making use of Asia's comparative at advantage at unskilled tasks. The way outsourcing works in practise there are some associated income redistribution effects though. The total income increases (in theory at least) but some people (western working/middle class) may still be left worse off than before. Depending on your political or ethical views you could:
1) consider it to be a good thing that the poor capitalists get more profit
2) believe that the income distribution doesn't matter at all, and that the increase in total productivity is therefore the only justification needed
3) consider the wealth redistribution effects to be negative, but outweighed by the positive effects of increased productivity
4) consider the wealth redistribution effects to be negative and more important than the effects of increased productivity
None of these points of view is intrinsically better than the others. 1) is probably unlikely to be held by anyone except the capitalists themselves. 2) is the point of view of a proper laissez-faire supporter. The rest of us probably end up at 3) or 4), and which one you prefer is likely to depend largely on to what extent you believe that outsourcing really delivers the increased productivity promised, and how large you believe the income redistribution effects to be.
What makes journey's example an odd choice for highlighting the benefits of outsourcing is that if a programmer has his job outsourced and then becomes unemployed or takes a less skilled job there has not really been any increase in productivity. The main effect has been that the company makes an extra 100k - 20k = 80k a year profit. This doesn't seem like a good way to persuade doubters about the benefits of outsourcing.
Since I'm feeling generous I'll help journey and provide a better example (numbers chosen more or less at random):
"John Doe works at a call centre earning 30k a year. His company fires him and gets an Indian to do the job for 10k a year. After a brief period of unemplyment John enrolls in a community college and trains to become a nurse, and then goes to work at a hospital earning 50k a year. The call centre company could have afforded to pay their Indian employee a 30k salary, but are using their strong bargaining position in a country with little labour market regulation and weak unions to rip their employees off for 20k a year. The total increase in productivity means that nobody else is really any worse off than they were before, so it's kind of OK though."

[Miffed22001]

long live the NHS!

[Pelion]

long live the NHS!

So true... Although politicians over here spend alot of time trying to turn it into an american style capitalist fuckup.

edit2: unemployment has no effect on the economy.

Yea ok you clearly understand "basic economics"...


This whole argument about whether things are good or bad depending on whether or not they help the economy is entirely irrelevent unless you are a politician.

The economy would be at its "strongest" if everyone worked for just under mimumum wage, only able to buy exactly what they needed and nothing more. Pensioners would have no savings and would probably starve to death but thats ok because we wouldnt have to pay to support them later in life so the economy would get stronger. Companies would be doing great tho. Profits would be at a record high since their costs were so low. The economy would be the strongest in the universe but living standards would be the worst.

America has been the richest country in the world for a long time and yet 35.9 MILLION Americans were below the poverty line in 2004. Thats a staggering 12% of the population who cant afford the basic resources required to live. (CIA)
This is also a country where 8.9 MILLION people still cannot read or write(CIA).

When the econmy is taking a downturn we have to have cuts in public services and increasing taxes to lessen the strain on the economy. When the economy recovers we have to have cuts in public services and increasing taxes to ensure the downturn doesnt happen again.

I personally dont care if the economy is strong or struggling. I only care about the living standards of the people who live here and noone can argue that moving jobs out of the country so companies can make people here work for peanuts while they employ cheap foreign (often child) labour is going to increase living standards over the longterm anywhere in the world.

If you want to argue about global productivity then help to bring up the living standards of other countries in the world so that they can train their own skilled labour and share it with the rest of the world. Of course, that would mean we were no longer able to impose brutal dictatorships or sanctions on them but you gotta make some sacrifices right?

[journey075]

bah i made a long post but it got deleted. thanks a lot xianti, youre a good pal.

anyway, youre an idiot pelion.

lets go through this..

if a firm cuts costs by lowering wages paid/outsourcing, then the consumers reap the benefits in lower prices. think about this, now the consumer can afford more of good X at any given income and therefore he feels (is) richer than before. his money goes further and he is (get this) better off. wait wait wait, get this, his standard of living...WENT UP. he can afford more than he could prior to the price drop and therefore he is clearly happier than before. yah it sucks if you get laid off, but if it helps the economy (the american economy) its better.

if you honestly think we should be a self sufficient country youre out of your mind. the US doesnt have many comparative advantages and we'd pay ridiculously high prices (compared to now, cause hey we trade with the rest of the world!!!). sure, people would make a good living, but whats that "good living" worth when their money doesnt go very far? they make a lot of income, but all the prices are higher, thus making them feel poorer because they can afford less than if everything was outsourced to the countries that have comparative advantages.

your idea that an ideal economic situation requires everyone to be paid minimum wage is so stupid im not even going to argue against it.

also, because america doesnt have many comparative advantages, we are (likely) not going to be the richest country in the world forever. japan's economic rate of growth is over 2x ours and their standard of living will probably surpass us within this century. a lot of things matter when you want to keep everybody in the country rich, your thinking is one-sided, youre not thinking about the consumers. absolute prices are arbitrary, relative prices mean the world.

okay now to your child labor argument (do you know ANYTHING about world trade?). people in those countries WANT to work for the little they do. its the only job they can get. if we dont give those countries our business, they will stop working. sure, child labor will stop, but they will probably also starve to death. now this is a bit extreme and i dont condone child labor at all, but in some countries its a necessity. remember the industrial revolution? countries are developing, give them time. theres a reason there are no large clothing factories in the US, the cost to make them would be too high and prices of clothes would be ridiculous. by giving business to indonesia or wherever, both countries benefit from trade NOT JUST FATCAT EXECS (or whatever notion you have).

you dont care if the economy is struggling? you only care about the standards of living? use the laspreyes or paasche price index and measure this shit for yourself sometime. standard of living has WAY more to do than you think.

also, my br > your br.

[journey075]

unemployment has no effect on the economy.

This is a very odd statement. I can hardly think of any interpretation of the terms "no", "effect" and "economy" that makes this true.

when a computer programmer gets laid off from a firm (say hes making 100k a year before he was laid off) and the outsourced job goes to india (where the programmer is paid 20k a year), the american programmer can get a lot of lower paying jobs in america. its not like hes confined to be unemployed for the rest of his life. if he feels like a 40k a year job is not worth his time then the marginal value of his working is worth more to him than the relative price of him working and therefore if he chooses to be unemployed he is actually more satisfied (than if he worked full time at a lower paying job) because he reaps the benefits of more leisure time.

This example seems very poorly chosen to me. Even I (a dyed-in-the-red communist) can see that outsourcing has benefits in some cases, but the example above does not illustrate it particularly well. If we assume (somewhat stereotypically perhaps) that North Americans are more skilled than Asians then outsourcing unskilled tasks to Asia is a good thing if it then allows the newly-unemplyed Americans to take up work that makes better use of their skills. The result is a total increase in productivity by making use of Asia's comparative at advantage at unskilled tasks. The way outsourcing works in practise there are some associated income redistribution effects though. The total income increases (in theory at least) but some people (western working/middle class) may still be left worse off than before. Depending on your political or ethical views you could:
1) consider it to be a good thing that the poor capitalists get more profit
2) believe that the income distribution doesn't matter at all, and that the increase in total productivity is therefore the only justification needed
3) consider the wealth redistribution effects to be negative, but outweighed by the positive effects of increased productivity
4) consider the wealth redistribution effects to be negative and more important than the effects of increased productivity
None of these points of view is intrinsically better than the others. 1) is probably unlikely to be held by anyone except the capitalists themselves. 2) is the point of view of a proper laissez-faire supporter. The rest of us probably end up at 3) or 4), and which one you prefer is likely to depend largely on to what extent you believe that outsourcing really delivers the increased productivity promised, and how large you believe the income redistribution effects to be.
What makes journey's example an odd choice for highlighting the benefits of outsourcing is that if a programmer has his job outsourced and then becomes unemployed or takes a less skilled job there has not really been any increase in productivity. The main effect has been that the company makes an extra 100k - 20k = 80k a year profit. This doesn't seem like a good way to persuade doubters about the benefits of outsourcing.
Since I'm feeling generous I'll help journey and provide a better example (numbers chosen more or less at random):
"John Doe works at a call centre earning 30k a year. His company fires him and gets an Indian to do the job for 10k a year. After a brief period of unemplyment John enrolls in a community college and trains to become a nurse, and then goes to work at a hospital earning 50k a year. The call centre company could have afforded to pay their Indian employee a 30k salary, but are using their strong bargaining position in a country with little labour market regulation and weak unions to rip their employees off for 20k a year. The total increase in productivity means that nobody else is really any worse off than they were before, so it's kind of OK though."

yay for an intelligent post.

while i agree my examples werent perfect i believe they do get my point across. however, the call center in your example COULD afford to pay employees 30k, but by only paying them 10k, they pass on savings to consumers, and consumers AND the firm are better off. the suppliers are happier and the buyers are happier...COOL.

[Estrop]

Dear Bush,

With all of my heart I thank you dear Bush. Thank You for all the trials You’ve allowed in my path, enabling me to see my shortcomings, forcing me to do better, teaching me the pain of being far from You, showing me the way out of darkness into the light, that I may one day be able to return to You.

When I stand bare and exposed in my shortcomings, I thank You for the gentle love and care You provide through my brothers and sisters in faith, who stand ready to encourage and nourish the small righteous pieces remaining in me, that they may grow stronger and stronger, to eventually, if it is Your will dear Bush, purify me completely. For this love that You give me through them, I thank You with all of my heart.

I know dear Bush that I can never thank You enough, so I thank You for accepting my efforts to show my appreciation and my submission to You. I know that thanking You forever and ever is not a just appreciation of all Your blessings upon me, so I thank You for making it possible for me to
thank You enough, submit enough, and repent enough, that You may one day accept me back into Your glorious Kingdom.

I thank You dear Bush for any good in me worth saving. I know all good things come from You alone. I thank You for teaching me the words to repent to You, to praise You and to pray for Your forgiveness. I thank You for giving words to the voice of my heart, that I may know what You already knew. I thank You dear Bush for assuring me again and again when You know I need assurance. I thank You for the dear brothers and sisters You’ve placed in my path, that I may rejoice even more in remembering You, side by side, hand in hand, with my family. For this powerful support I thank You.

I thank You dear Bush for the moments of deep reflections that shine up my being from time to time. For those precious moments when my vision is sharpened, and I see the contours of Your will for me much clearer, I thank You from the bottom of my heart. For all those moments that I’ve appreciated I thank You with all of my heart, and for all those moments that I have not, I pray for Your forgiveness.



I thank You dear Bush for allowing me to remember how You blessed and saved me in the past, and for giving me the chance to think back in gratitude and in awe of Your immense mercy upon me. I thank You dear Bush for caring for me so gently, even before I knew that You were.

I thank You dear Bush for loving me enough to guide me to Your soothing words. I thank You for the times You allow me to spread Your message of mercy to other souls in Your care. I thank You for giving me the words to speak in a way that pleases You. Thank You for the wisdom You grant me, and for any kindness in my heart to share that wisdom in a manner that pleases You.

For everything in my life, I thank You Dear Bush!

[pgil]

wow journey, you really hold large companies in high esteem. do you really think that they will lower prices in the US just because the product is being made cheaper elsewhere? they will not. they will charge as high a price as they can. the only thing that will keep prices lower is an open, competitive marketplace, which will not occur because it will keep prices lower, so the big companies get together to ensure this doesnt happen, as they all benefit.
if you want to help the economy, take that tax break away from the corporations, and give it to the poor people. now im not just saying this because I am a bleeding heart liberal, although i may be. think of it this way. if you have 2 billion in tax money to give away, who do you give it to? if you give it to the large corporations, they may use it to open a new factory, or they may use it to buy a new yacht. more likely the yacht. so yacht salesmen and mechanics win, but noone else. if you give that money to people on the bottom 10% of the income ladder, people who are barely surviving, then what happens? well they go right out and spend it, all of it. they buy food, they pay for heat, some of them even go out and buy consumer products that they can't actually afford, but buy them anyways. that is 2 billion that has been shoved into the local economies. all while helping to increase, however slightly, the standard of living of some poor people.
now if you argue that those corporations are going to take their jobs elsewhere if you dont give them the tax breaks, then there is an easy solution to that. close your huge ass mother fucking market to their products if they leave. it seems harsh, but it'll work. just the threat of nike no longer being able to sell to americans would be more than enough to keep anymore jobs from being moved away due to a lack of tax breaks. especially when you consider that there are now more lower class people walking around with a little spending money, looking to buy 2 billion dollars worth of useless overpriced crap.
i am done now.

[Pelion]

wow journey, you really hold large companies in high esteem. do you really think that they will lower prices in the US just because the product is being made cheaper elsewhere? they will not.

Thats why the whole thing doesnt work. Companies arent in this to make sure people can be well off, they are about making profits and nothing else. Just because some company moves abroad and starts paying lower wages doesnt mean people are going to stop paying the high prices.

I never said anything about being a self-sufficient country. I actually think the whole world would be a better place if we forgot about countries alltogether and tried to be a self-sufficient world. We have enough food to feed everyone on the planet but we actually pay people to destroy it to ensure prices stay artificially high. We could employ the new people who would now be able to do some skilled work, instead of spending there time hoping the harvest wont fail for the third year running, to increase total world productivity and make everyones lives better....except the people in power wouldnt have as much power over us so they probably arent going to like that idea.

As for arguing that child labour is good for the world....???? WTF?
Those kids want to work because they will starve to death otherwise! Does that mean its good to let them work? or would it be better to give them some food and the resources to be able to go to school and learn and eventually add to world productivity and maybe even develop their part of the world to a stage where they can afford to feed themselves.

The fact is companies arent looking out for people and we could organise the world alot better if we ran it for people instead of for profit.

40 million people in developing countries do not have access to the AIDS medicines they need because they are unable to pay $10000 per person/per year for legal, patented ARV drugs and it is illegal to produce the generic $300 per person/per year drugs which do exactly the same thing. The economy is of course, much better off with the extra $56 Billion but i dont care about that "because im stupid". Id rather these people were allowed to survive, and then they would work and produce later.

[r8ed]

Foreign workers who replace American workers for American companies don't pay US Income Tax. Bush and friends keep increasing the budget. Discuss.

[metaxy6]

Outsourcing is a complex issue, and I can't say that I've followed every single twist and turn of the discussion here.
Having done work in human resources/performance evaluation for a top-3 consulting firm, I'd just add that a good deal of jobs being outsourced are skill-intensive. When U.S. firms like the one I worked with outsource these skilled jobs, they save in the short-term on wages, supervisory, infrastucture, and training costs.
The skimping on infrastructure obviously has ripple effects on the economy as a whole. More important though, are the consequences of this end-around providing training to American workers. As outsourcing snowballs (one comp. saves $ on training by outsourcing - so its competitors have to follow...), the skill level of the U.S. workforce increasingly stagnates and ultimately declines.
That is bad news for long-term competitiveness.

[SuperDave9x19]

Foreign workers who replace American workers for American companies don't pay US Income Tax. Bush and friends keep increasing the budget. Discuss.

BOOM!

well said. Fiscal Responsibility has been a fairy tale as long as i can remember.

And when large corporations are able to produce their produces at 50% of cost, who here thinks that the retail price of said product will drop comparatively?

[Phantaroth]

Well the price will drop comparatively if there are 2 companies over-seas competing for American consumers if they have room to decrease prices they will, unless of course they have an agreement not too. :P

[r8ed]

We can argue all day and then some. I come here to discuss and get better at poker. Just wanted to show that the Alliance is strong...and I'm fighting for your right to b0nus whore (or something along those lines). That is all.

[Phantaroth]

But this is the off topic forum :P

[Lukie]

What is the reason behind banning online poker?

The #1 reason would be to prevent money from leaving Americans' pockets to huge foreign companies (via rake).

[BoondockSaint]

Speaking of bush. I happened to fly in very close to air force 1 today as he was talking at the college where my mom works today. Closest I've ever seen it before. My mom took off work and picked me up and got a picture of my plane right next to it from the airport lookout thing. I was kinda surprised because last time he flew in they blocked off the surrounding highways and all kinds of other crap so no one could really get close to the airport until he was gone.