Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kings over Queens

Is it the people, or the politics?

Rate this topic

36 posts in this topic

I

What is "Moral Fiber?"

 

 

makes me poop........kinda like this forum does sometimes.

 

yeah punk we all know it ownt work your new here, weve heard all your comments before from the other nay sayers....enjoy your status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much profit, in terms of dollars and in terms of margin, would be okay with you for a corporation to make?

 

 

 

I'm not an economist.

And I must admit the whole concept of profit as motivation and corporations as "persons" with inalienable rights is laughable.

Not necessarily ha ha funny but an absurdity of human folly mixed with greed.

 

As I see things, the question is based on the premise that Adam Smith's "Free Market" is not only a valid philosophy but a workable one.

History has demonstarted that premise as dead wrong.

 

Throughout the history of capitalism poiticians have used tax payer's money to pick winners and losers. And as a consequence some corporations have reaped huge windfalls at taxpayers expense.

Just look at the oil industry and their "lease agreements", tax incentives, and resuting record profits.

 

And I might add isn't it part and parcel of the original problem/concern of Kings and Queens? ...why politicians have no moral authority while they feed at corporate troughs.

 

 

Or how about the free market/profits of the airliner industry.

Airlines are continually bailed out, remember the 7 billion we just gave them? If that's not corporate welfare AND an example of politicians picking winners what is?

Imagine any other industry giving away free products (frequent flyer miles) while cutting Labor's wages and raising CEO's shares, and then crying about not making enough profit?

 

Pffft.

 

Isn't the whole idea of capitalism about getting something for nothing?

I give so-n-so some loot, and then I wait till they give it back... plus more?

And at whose expense is this profit? The tax payer who is subsidizing said industry through both taxes AND purchase of said goods or services.

What a crock-o-cr@p.

 

I don't think the issue is about profit at all simply because it's based on a premise that is proven a failure. The real question is how much wealth does anyone person or family need to fulfill their hopes and dreams of a healthy, safe, and prosperous life. Prosperous here is used to describe not wanting for the essentials of daily living, food, water, shelter, community.

 

There are estimates that 300 million people live in the USA

 

300,000,000 people

X

$100,000 per year

=

30,000,000,000

30 billion dollars annually for every American to live without want

How much do we spend in Iraq weekly?

And which stock holders are profiting?

And who is going to pay the price in blood and treasure?

 

The GDP is estimated about 12.5 trillion dollars annually

surely we could afford to prove goods and services to every American in the sum of $100,000 annually between health, food, education, housing etc. In fact it would probably spur the economy because many areas of public need would now have the necessary resources to fulfill their charters. And that lead to more jobs and more employment.

Whereas the consolidation of wealth in the hands of very very few people leads to rationing and shortages of goods services and jobs.

 

So my answer is another but more pointed question, how much does anyone need? Because the overall consequences of profiteering will be shared, where is the social responsibility for taking more wealth than is necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so the merry-go-round begins anew. You want to see more of it, PunkF? Go to the Live Science.. and Libertarian Question for Steve... threads.

 

Is mercury or PCBs in my striped bass an infringement on my right to a healthy life?

 

 

 

The pollution questions still remain unanswered(see above threads).

 

I am also reminded of an old saw: When someone says, "it's not about the money, it's the principle," it's about the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JohnM I edited your post so it makes sense HappyWave.gif

 

yeah punk, we all know it won't work.

You're new here, we've heard all your comments before from the other nay sayers

...enjoy your status quo.

 

So are you saying that since my "status quo" (I guess you mean my member status as newbie) is such that my thoughts or ideas are somehow less valid than your own?

 

Hmmmm?

 

Maybe if we had a beer together or shared a fish story or two that might bump my credibility?

 

Dunno?

Maybe if I post a bunch of pithy one line comments that would raise my status quo and subsequently the weight of any experessed ideas?

 

BTW, not really interested in flame wars but I do enjoy thoughtful exchanges and questioning any beliefs which seem to fly in the face of Common Sense (as in Thomas Paine's Common Sense)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All politicians lie. ALL of them do.

 

It is just a matter of how much, a measure of degrees. There is no such thing as an honest politician. There are "less dishonest" and "more dishonest" breeds, but none of them are above board.

 

With that said, we elect people to office based upon what their record is.

 

We hope and pray that they will keep their word for past deeds and promises kept or broken, and for what they promise they will do for us in the future.

 

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Do WE always keep our word? No, but the impact of me promising to my wife that I will take out the garbage, and then not doing it, is much smaller than a pol who says they will lower a certain tax and then raises it instead. The stakes are much higher.

 

Why don't they keep their word? Well, they lied initially and we just didn't know it. Or, perhaps they changed their mind given a new set of data about a situation that was not availabe to them when they made their initial decision.

 

The bottom line is: Yes, we elect pols. But we do it with the hopes and prayers that they will do for us what they say they will. Since voters don't have a crystal ball that amounts to wishful thinking - but it's all a voter has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, ya HAD to go and do it, didn't ya.....it's Friday and I don't have much time, but.....

 

 

 

First off, when JohnM mentioned "status quo" he wasn't referring to your member status here in the least, he was referring to the "status quo" of today's government and society, and the fact that he thinks you evidently feel comfortable with that.

 

 

 

Secondly, capitalism is NOT based on "getting something for nothing".....it is about two or more parties voluntarily engaging in an exchange of goods or services where both parties feel that they are benefitting from that exchange.......

 

 

 

Moonbat......I haven't forgotten about your questions...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you punk, what A WELL THOUGHT and well written reponse. You are a breath of fresh air from the "left" side of the board.

 

We saw (and I saw in Soviet Russia) what happens when you try that.

As much as you dont want to think individuals are free willed creatures, they are. They will do what they damn well please under the most extrordinary circumstances.

There is no good that can come from taking 300 million people and telling them they do not have to earn their way in life, whatever that way may be.

You'll just have to end up killing off the people that want to do as they are entitled by God, and thats just no way to live.

But it does sound great doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, when JohnM mentioned "status quo" he wasn't referring to your member status here in the least, he was referring to the "status quo" of today's government and society, and the fact that he thinks you evidently feel comfortable with that.

 

 

Oh redface.gif

Sorry bout my misunderstanding

 

I'm definitly not Ok with the "quo"

And I also think reform is futile.

Buckminster Fuller uses the term "newform" to describe what must be done when one system or paradigm has run it's course.

Why bandaid a sinking ship.

 

To quote Robert Hunter

"Though I could not caution all I yet may warn a few:

Don't lend your hand to raise no flag

atop no ship of fools"

 

 

Secondly, capitalism is NOT based on "getting something for nothing".....it is about two or more parties voluntarily engaging in an exchange of goods or services where both parties feel that they are benefitting from that exchange...

 

 

IMO this is the premise put forth by Adam Smith

 

One of the main points of The Wealth of Nations is that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by a so-called invisible hand.

source wiki

 

And it just does not work considering the jiggering of the market with subsidies tax breaks and other nefarious incentives. If we believe in a true free market then NO business interest should be supported or encouraged by taxpayer money.

 

And if you need surgery, who exactly are you going to negotiate with?

This is hardly a situation where one can afford to get the best market price.

And yet healthcare IS a for-profit-industry.

 

You are a breath of fresh air from the "left" side of the board.

 

 

Hey thanks!

However, I do not consider myself left or right. In fact I think those descriptors are distractions and create a wedge. Divide and conquer, eh?

 

As much as you dont want to think individuals are free willed creatures, they are. They will do what they damn well please under the most extrordinary circumstances.

 

 

Just so you know I'm more in line with Thoreau, Whitman and even gasp Sartre. Individualism, existentialism, and social cocontract all wraped up in one.

 

There is no good that can come from taking 300 million people and telling them they do not have to earn their way in life, whatever that way may be.

 

 

That's not what I intended to say. But it seems an honest misunderstanding.

There should always be conditions for access to wealth. BTW, wealth is access to resources, money is a tool used to control access to said resources.

 

As an example, the Isrealis and Swiss require public service as a condition of citizenship. Why not have all citizens give 2 years of public service before during or after traditional high school and any of a number of areas which need more help, in excahnge for health benifits, education, or other public assistance? Imaging if every teacher in the USA had 3-4 classroom assistants, These lower skilled assistants would accomplish a lot of things.

Personal development

community service

improved school environment

cost savings for the tax payer

a sense of being part of America itself

Ask what you can do for your country not what it can do for you do... something like that.

 

punk you havent seen pity yet....wait until i crack that saphire open tonight.

 

 

Do you mean pity or pithy. And, I have seen both wink.gif

And hey, take it easy on the bottle, your liver will thank you for it.

And maybe even some of those who care about you will too.

 

Saphire huh, pretty good stuff?

I'm just a lowly beer swiller. India Pale Ale is always my first choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.