Christine O'Donnell

Kevin Wilslef
Kevin Wilslef's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2010-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Christine O'Donnell

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

By BEN EVANS

 

The Associated Press

WILMINGTON, Del. — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that he thought it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

___

October 19, 2010 10:13 AM EDT

 

Seriously, this is up for discussion now? I wasn't a fan of her from her previous idiotic statements, but she keeps opening her mouth.  She should seriously think really hard before she speaks.

 

All that I know, there was no god for me - Fear Factory - Resurrection
http://theoracleofjames.wordpress.com/


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
On the bright side

While I do agree that this woman is totally clueless and has some of the most assinine ideas that I believe I have ever heard, I think that the media should give her as much air time as possible, perhaps it would FINALLY convince the voters to not elect someone from the "American Taliban" into office. The opposing sides should compile as many of her statements as possible and give them as much television time as needed, hehe.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sort of reminds me of a

Sort of reminds me of a political discussion in the Northwest a few years ago.  The republicans elected this religious wacko - totally over the top - in the primary.  With the result that the democrat won in a land slide.  You would think they would learn -

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Sort of reminds me

cj wrote:

Sort of reminds me of a political discussion in the Northwest a few years ago.  The republicans elected this religious wacko - totally over the top - in the primary.  With the result that the democrat won in a land slide.  You would think they would learn -

Herold Hochstatter?  He shows up at most of my families functions.  He's a zealot religiously and politically...having said that, he's a neat guy to talk to, probably one of the most honest people I've ever met, very generous, brilliant too, although I disagree with just about everything that comes out of his mouth.

 

Unless you mean John Carlson, who's name I didn't even know until I Googled that election Smiling

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:cj

mellestad wrote:

cj wrote:

Sort of reminds me of a political discussion in the Northwest a few years ago.  The republicans elected this religious wacko - totally over the top - in the primary.  With the result that the democrat won in a land slide.  You would think they would learn -

Herold Hochstatter?  He shows up at most of my families functions.  He's a zealot religiously and politically...having said that, he's a neat guy to talk to, probably one of the most honest people I've ever met, very generous, brilliant too, although I disagree with just about everything that comes out of his mouth.

 

Unless you mean John Carlson, who's name I didn't even know until I Googled that election Smiling

 

No, Linda Smith vs Patty Murray.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/05/us/the-1998-elections-state-by-state-west-washington.html?ref=patty_murray

I guess it wasn't a true landslide, but at the time, all the predictions by the pundits were that Ms. Smith would win.  The fact that she lost at all was startling to some.  It came out later - at the time, Washington had the open primary.  That is, you could vote for any candidate of any party in the primary.  The top two vote winners would run in the general election even if they were both of the same party.  I thought this was a very sensible idea.  It has since been changed in part because of this particular election.  Murray's primary numbers were way low while Smith's were high.  The usual question in polling surveys is "Who will you vote for in the upcoming primary election?"  And this was thought to be an indication of who people will vote for in the general.  They also ask what party you consider yourself to be affiliated with.  And so the polls seemed to show that a lot of Democrats were crossing party lines to vote for Smith.  What was really going on was a lot of Democrats were voting for Smith because the other republican candidate was a very middle of the road reasonable person.  By getting Smith on the ballot, they were thinking a lot of people would vote against her.  And so it was.

I didn't live in Yakima - where Hochstetter was the Washington state representative - but close enough he was in the local papers a lot.  The guy was an idiot.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Got to love the Witch

Bill Maher is going to have a field day with this one...


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I truly adore this dunce...

I truly adore this dunce... and I hope she never goes away...


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Socialists to left of

 Socialists to left of me.....Fundies to right......Here I am stuck in the middle with you...

 

 

If that isn't enough to get everyone to vote Libertarian I don't know what is.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Below is actual video of the

Below is actual video of the debate segment.  Starts with ID in schools.  She directly questions the idea that the government cannot endorse religion, and acts totally incredulous at the idea the 1st amendment even discusses such a thing.  

Absolutely incredible.  

I don't care how fundy/libertarian/right/left/extreme you are, how have we, as a country, gotten to the point were someone can run on a platform about core values and constitutional imperitives and be *so ignorant* that you literally can't grasp concepts young teenagers should know?  This is exactly like Palin, and I didn't understand it then any better than I do now.

I'm serious now: Is willful ignorance seen as a positive attribute in these conservative voting blocks, or are people just missing something basic and profound?

 

 

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmmm

 

No question at all, the teabaggers make George W. look like Jimmy Carter, kindly, tolerant, understanding - possessed of nuanced intellect.

Surely they won't get any real support from the electorate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: No

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

No question at all, the teabaggers make George W. look like Jimmy Carter, kindly, tolerant, understanding - possessed of nuanced intellect.

Surely they won't get any real support from the electorate?

Along with this sort of thing, and after seeing that video where people at Glen Beck's rally were interviewed, I feel despair that there can be that many ordinary, regular-seeming people who turn out to be so ignorant/uninformed/misinformed/bigotted, in what purports to be a modern western society...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

No question at all, the teabaggers make George W. look like Jimmy Carter, kindly, tolerant, understanding - possessed of nuanced intellect.

Surely they won't get any real support from the electorate?

Along with this sort of thing, and after seeing that video where people at Glen Beck's rally were interviewed, I feel despair that there can be that many ordinary, regular-seeming people who turn out to be so ignorant/uninformed/misinformed/bigotted, in what purports to be a modern western society...

 

I don't want to move - it's a lot of work and I'm already tired thinking of it.  But maybe if I got a nice offer of a job and someone willing to sponsor me.........Can I claim lack of stupidity as my reason for emigrating?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: Along

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Along with this sort of thing, and after seeing that video where people at Glen Beck's rally were interviewed, I feel despair that there can be that many ordinary, regular-seeming people who turn out to be so ignorant/uninformed/misinformed/bigotted, in what purports to be a modern western society...

That comment is pretty ignorant/uninformed/misinformed/bigoted. See, I can do it too. At least you recognize them as "regular-seeming" because they are pretty regular. The tea party is simply made up of people who are frustrated with a government that ignores them, spends money that doesn't exist and believes government is the magical answer to all of our problems. And they get smeared as racists, bigots, rich, idiots etc. which simply has no basis in reality. Sure there are a few idiotic rich racist bigots in the group but it is hardly a majority of the movement. But name your movement and I will find an idiotic rich racist bigot that belongs to it. If you get enough people odds are your going to have a couple. For example, Alan Green is the democrats equivalent to O'Donnell. (Actually I don't think O'Donnell is as crazy as Green but that is debatable)  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Along with this sort of thing, and after seeing that video where people at Glen Beck's rally were interviewed, I feel despair that there can be that many ordinary, regular-seeming people who turn out to be so ignorant/uninformed/misinformed/bigotted, in what purports to be a modern western society...

That comment is pretty ignorant/uninformed/misinformed/bigoted. See, I can do it too. At least you recognize them as "regular-seeming" because they are pretty regular. The tea party is simply made up of people who are frustrated with a government that ignores them, spends money that doesn't exist and believes government is the magical answer to all of our problems. And they get smeared as racists, bigots, rich, idiots etc. which simply has no basis in reality. Sure there are a few idiotic rich racist bigots in the group but it is hardly a majority of the movement. But name your movement and I will find an idiotic rich racist bigot that belongs to it. If you get enough people odds are your going to have a couple. For example, Alan Green is the democrats equivalent to O'Donnell. (Actually I don't think O'Donnell is as crazy as Green but that is debatable)  

Anectodally, the Tea Party seems about as extremist as PETA and Greenpeace.  I think lots of those people are nuts too.

I think the change is we're *used* to liberal whacko groups because they've been around since the 60's, but this kind of crazy right wing group is pretty new.  For example, skin-heads don't make the news very often, and they have radical right wing views...but they've been around a long time.

The other problem is how popular the tea party is with 'regular' people.  The bulk of the Tea Partiers are 'normal'...which is why I think the Tea Party is probably doomed, at least in the current form.  Too many of the regular people just follow the group-think rhetoric without really using their brains, and you get situations where they are supporting people and policies that they *never* would have supported five years ago, before the this rabid and unthinking movement started.  I think we'll reach a point of dissillusionment when tea party people see their extremist candidates self-destruct enough times, and start to realize that politicians act the way they traditionally do for a reason.

Or they'll just get more rabid and the country will eventually melt down.  Quite a few of the Tea Party people I know literally stockpile guns and ammo because they think there will be a civilian revolt in the next few years, once Obama comes out of the closet as the next Stalin.  That isn't even hyperbole, that is really what they think.

Maybe that is another part of the problem...these extremist "Libertarian" types have been around for a while too, but they've managed to hijack the voice of the Tea Party in many situations.  The people waving bigoted signs and ranting about things they obviously don't understand are the same people I was seeing twenty years ago at gun shows and Evangelical religious retreats...they just weren't unified before, and they stood under the larger umbrella of the Republicans.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Anectodally,

mellestad wrote:

Anectodally, the Tea Party seems about as extremist as PETA and Greenpeace.  I think lots of those people are nuts too.

Such as? Sure, you might find one or two nuts but the general concepts that bring together tea partiers and the vast majority who show up are hardly extreme. I would compare it more to liberal groups like AARP or the tamer Unions that might go a little crazy sometimes but have positions the generally have mainstream appeal.

 

 

mellestad wrote:

I think the change is we're *used* to liberal whacko groups because they've been around since the 60's, but this kind of crazy right wing group is pretty new.  For example, skin-heads don't make the news very often, and they have radical right wing views...but they've been around a long time.

And skinheads have absolutely nothing to do with the tea party....or the KKK or a variety of other radical right wing kooks. It is kind of funny because I was listening to a religious right wing talk show the other day where the host was flipping out over the Tea Party because of its emphasis on economic issues while ignoring the morality issues pushed by the Christian Right so even the fundies aren't completely on board. 

 

mellestad wrote:

The other problem is how popular the tea party is with 'regular' people.  The bulk of the Tea Partiers are 'normal'...which is why I think the Tea Party is probably doomed, at least in the current form.  Too many of the regular people just follow the group-think rhetoric without really using their brains, and you get situations where they are supporting people and policies that they *never* would have supported five years ago, before the this rabid and unthinking movement started.  I think we'll reach a point of dissillusionment when tea party people see their extremist candidates self-destruct enough times, and start to realize that politicians act the way they traditionally do for a reason.

The longevity of the Tea Party movement is a very interesting question. I predicted it would die out after health care passed and the world kept turning...I was wrong. I hope the movement is longer term but yes, power corrupts and most likely the majority of new politicians who go to Washington will become corrupt as well and we find ourselves in the same damn boat. That will be the real test. Will we throw out the new people we put in when they turn out to be the new leaches? I hope so, I fear not. 

 

 

mellestad wrote:

Or they'll just get more rabid and the country will eventually melt down.  Quite a few of the Tea Party people I know literally stockpile guns and ammo because they think there will be a civilian revolt in the next few years, once Obama comes out of the closet as the next Stalin.  That isn't even hyperbole, that is really what they think.

It is happening right now over in Greece and France where several "retirement" riots have turned violent. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_france_retirement_strikes Britain is also making significant cuts in government benefits, it will be interesting to see if something similar happens there. It seems prudent to me to consider the possibility of it happening in the US when the government literally has no money. Forget Obama, when the government can no longer send out social security checks, welfare, medicare, food stamps etc a certain level of violence can be expected. I hope that Americans are better then that and when the government is forced to cut payments to the looter class but I'll keep my ammo well supplied. Of course, I'm a gun nut who has never had a short supply of ammo so it doesn't exactly require me to go to the store.

 

mellestad wrote:

Maybe that is another part of the problem...these extremist "Libertarian" types have been around for a while too, but they've managed to hijack the voice of the Tea Party in many situations.  The people waving bigoted signs and ranting about things they obviously don't understand are the same people I was seeing twenty years ago at gun shows and Evangelical religious retreats...they just weren't unified before, and they stood under the larger umbrella of the Republicans. 

Big difference between libertarians and evangelicals. Even those of us who are more economically oriented and thus spent most of our time in the republican tent have always fought with the evangelicals. But you are correct, the tea party is split and lacks any real cohesive. You have the more evangelicals like O'Donnell and the more classically libertarian like Rand Paul. All the tea party really wants is for our damn government to wake up and realize we have big problems and throwing money around like candy at halloween isn't fixing it. Those "radicals".

 

Personally, I wish it was far more radical towards the libertarian side of things but for now if we can just stop spending and stop destroying our economy I will consider it a victory. If we can at least make 30-40 year incumbents fear for their jobs so that they actually bother to READ THE DAMN BILLS before they vote for them, that would be a victory. The tea partiers understand a hell of a lot more than you give them credit for. They understand that Washington D.C. has become a cesspool of corruption and is steering our country toward economic disaster. And they have realized that they have the power to throw their corrupt asses out of public office. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Some good points.  Just

Some good points.  Just clarification, I wasn't saying skinheads and evangelicals have anything in common with Libertarians, besides moving in some of the same right wing circles.

I think that is the problem, like you said, the Tea Party is trying to represent too many diverse groups to ever become a 'real' political party without getting rid of a few groups.  You can't have 'real' Libertarians in the same party as 'real' Evangelicals, they are opposed at almost every level.  I think many Tea Partiers don't realize this yet though but I think they will eventually, that was my point about dissillusionment.  Outside of specific cirumstance I'm not sure how powerful they can really be, besides generally making life hard for unpopular incumbents.  I don't see many scenarios where they put people in positions of power, and any politician that caters to any portion of the movement risks hurting their own base.

I agree, the only realistic outcome *might* be that some Republicans push lower taxation and balancing the budget more.  But we'll see.

 

I think true Libertarianism like the Paul's is just too extreme for most people.  It is all well and good until your average Tea Party voter actually realizes what Libertarianism would mean.  It is just a buzz-word to so many of them and those types will eventually go back to stinking up the Republican party.  But you have this hodge-podge of ideas blending Evanglical views, Libertarian views, and above all a general sense of conservative dissatisfaction.  

My biggest problem with most Tea Partiers is they don't have realistic answers to address the causes of their dislike for the current system...but I'd rather see America move *towards* socialistic systems rather than away, and I don't like the conservative morality part of the movement...so I tend to disagree with every facet of the movement from the ground up.

About the only thing I agree with them about is cutting back on superfluous and wasteful spending, but I'm going to support a lot more projects than the average Tea Partier would, and certainly more than any Libertarian would.  I think the current tax rate is just fine (Although of course it could be cleaned up), and I say that as someone who pays plenty of Federal, state and local taxes, it is isn't like I'm a lazy bum suckling at the government teat.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think the current

Quote:
I think the current tax rate is just fine (Although of course it could be cleaned up), and I say that as someone who pays plenty of Federal, state and local taxes, it is isn't like I'm a lazy bum suckling at the government teat.

I also agree that it needs to be far less convoluted. But I hate the stereotype that all poor people are lazy merely because they remain poor. I know two co-workers who live in nice middle class neighborhoods who DON'T have health care and are one disaster away from loosing everything. Our pay gap isn't just affecting the poor.

I don't think most people want the "government teat" if they didn't need it. But when some asshole billionaire who doesn't need social security cries about higher taxes, and still collects social security and then just tells the poor to work more hours while the pay gap explodes, what do you expect the middle and poor classes to do?

Maybe if the corporate class would put more into the workers and lower their prices, keep jobs here, and make the cost of living livable instead of insisting on no limits for themselves, maybe the other two classes wouldn't be asking for government protection from their exploitation.

It is fucking absurd that a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas, and even the oil industry and the countries that have the most influence admit that they are ripping the rest of the world off and DON'T CARE!

I find it ironic that the NFL team owners would argue against salary caps for themselves, but have absolutely no problem putting a salary cap on the players who make them rich.

Most poor people, most people in general are NOT lazy. But they should not be subject to being indentured slaves because some corporate fat cat or share holder wants more money.

I think that black guy from the NY Governor's debate said it best, "THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH"

And it is, not because the poor are lazy or want to be lazy, but because those at the top don't want speed limits or rules.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I do know a lot of people

I do know a lot of people who *are* abusing government handouts though.  I would rather pay to cover some waste than see people in genuine need of help get shafted though, but it would be nicer if we could wave a magic wand and make abuse stop.  While we're at it, we can wave another magic wand and make everyone capable of being productive be productive.

I think my biggest reservation about welfare systems is the potential to discourage productivity.  But I think it can be managed.

 

I agree with you though, although I might be a slightly bigger fan of enterprise in general.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think the current

Sorry double post.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I agree with

mellestad wrote:
I agree with you though, although I might be a slightly bigger fan of enterprise in general.

Who says I am not? I am against abuse and as far as I see it the middle and poor classes at this point have no choice but to have someone step in.

I am not against paying others to paint the fence for you. I am against giving them crappy wages and then creating an environment where their food and rent cost make it impossible for them to live.

I watched an episode of "Pawn Stars" where a guy brought in a currency coin printed by a mining company. They would pay the workers with this "money" but they also owned the property they lived in and the stores they shopped at. It kept the workers desperate and poor.

Now while that scam does not exist today, to me, the economy reflects that same exploitation. Do you seriously think those small bag of chips cost 99 cents to make? Corporate America would charge you 6 bucks for that same bag of chips if they could.

It isn't business ownership I am against, it is the stagnant and falling wages and exploding pay gap and no rules attitude the top has.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Cristine O'Donnell

The nutty left enables the nutty right and visa-versa.

They both go on and on about their fucking birthrights. They just have a different list. All are just scams to get something for nothing.

 

Listen to George Carlin, you have no fucking rights, it is all bullshit people made up.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

When will there ever be a polital party based on this? Never. Because politics is just like religion. All BS made up, scammers running around telling people they have all these 'rights'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:While we're at it, we

Quote:
While we're at it, we can wave another magic wand and make everyone capable of being productive be productive.

How do you define "productive"? I have seen workers who have TWO jobs who don't do shit unless they have to. I work part time and do more than all the others.

And what about housewives? They don't earn a paycheck? Should everyone be forced to have a job? I don't get paid a dime for making these posts or my activism here and on the net. Am I lazy because I value getting an important message out?

I think there is room for everyone and I don't think life should be all about consumption. Poe didn't build a damn thing and died dirt poor.

I think people SHOULD be happy in life and do what they want, but that should not constitute being a slave to the cost of living.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The nutty left

EXC wrote:

The nutty left enables the nutty right and visa-versa.

They both go on and on about their fucking birthrights. They just have a different list. All are just scams to get something for nothing.

 

Listen to George Carlin, you have no fucking rights, it is all bullshit people made up.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

When will there ever be a polital party based on this? Never. Because politics is just like religion. All BS made up, scammers running around telling people they have all these 'rights'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

 

 

Are you admitting that the Libertarian party will provide no change?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The nutty left

EXC wrote:

The nutty left enables the nutty right and visa-versa.

They both go on and on about their fucking birthrights. They just have a different list. All are just scams to get something for nothing.

 

Listen to George Carlin, you have no fucking rights, it is all bullshit people made up.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

When will there ever be a polital party based on this? Never. Because politics is just like religion. All BS made up, scammers running around telling people they have all these 'rights'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

 

 

Comedy sounds funny, but stating the fact that life is harsh and a crap shoot doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better for each other.

A rich person can have a heart attack, or be robbed, or murdered by a loved one as any one else. But that doesn't mean our species should strive for "might makes right" and "money equals power". I can staple my nuts to the wall, but that doesn't mean I should.

The only thing nutty to me is that our country is bent on becoming like the sweat shops in China.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Some good

mellestad wrote:

Some good points.  Just clarification, I wasn't saying skinheads and evangelicals have anything in common with Libertarians, besides moving in some of the same right wing circles.

I think that is the problem, like you said, the Tea Party is trying to represent too many diverse groups to ever become a 'real' political party without getting rid of a few groups.  You can't have 'real' Libertarians in the same party as 'real' Evangelicals, they are opposed at almost every level.  I think many Tea Partiers don't realize this yet though but I think they will eventually, that was my point about dissillusionment.  Outside of specific cirumstance I'm not sure how powerful they can really be, besides generally making life hard for unpopular incumbents.  I don't see many scenarios where they put people in positions of power, and any politician that caters to any portion of the movement risks hurting their own base.

And I would argue that part of the strength of the Tea Party movement is its lack of structure. Political parties exist by nature to elect people with the right letter in front of their name. The party itself has no interest in pursuing real change which can often be controversial. The party is interested in not tipping the boat and attracting or suppressing voters. The Tea Party is much more of a movement for change but will probably be short term. But a good purge of both parties is healthy and way overdue.

 

mellestad wrote:

About the only thing I agree with them about is cutting back on superfluous and wasteful spending, but I'm going to support a lot more projects than the average Tea Partier would, and certainly more than any Libertarian would.  I think the current tax rate is just fine (Although of course it could be cleaned up), and I say that as someone who pays plenty of Federal, state and local taxes, it is isn't like I'm a lazy bum suckling at the government teat.

 

And when isn't government spending superfluous and wasteful? Maybe I'm a cynic, but it seems to me the very nature of government spending leads to waste and corruption. The people responsible for spending the money don't care and have no reason to care. They are spending someone else's money and receive far more personal gain from providing a few kickbacks to the right friends than from doing their job efficiently. Maybe throwing a few out will scare  them straight for awhile but when people calm down I have no doubt politicians will return to their current level of corruption. 

Compare that to say a charity like the Red Cross. If the Red Cross had the reputation Fema has of incompetence and waste do you think that people would continue to donate? Of course not. The Red Cross has incentive to perform well because if they don't, people will stop donating money. Government agencies continue to get money no matter what because it is taken by force. Personally, I would rather take the taxes I pay for social security and give it to an elderly person in need, I would rather donate the taxes I pay for medicare and medicaid to a hospital or other medical charity. Then I can watch those charities and make sure they spend my money wisely. If they don't I give elsewhere. I can't do that with the government. I can see where my money is wasted but I can't do anything about it without breaking serious laws. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Some good points.  Just clarification, I wasn't saying skinheads and evangelicals have anything in common with Libertarians, besides moving in some of the same right wing circles.

I think that is the problem, like you said, the Tea Party is trying to represent too many diverse groups to ever become a 'real' political party without getting rid of a few groups.  You can't have 'real' Libertarians in the same party as 'real' Evangelicals, they are opposed at almost every level.  I think many Tea Partiers don't realize this yet though but I think they will eventually, that was my point about dissillusionment.  Outside of specific cirumstance I'm not sure how powerful they can really be, besides generally making life hard for unpopular incumbents.  I don't see many scenarios where they put people in positions of power, and any politician that caters to any portion of the movement risks hurting their own base.

And I would argue that part of the strength of the Tea Party movement is its lack of structure. Political parties exist by nature to elect people with the right letter in front of their name. The party itself has no interest in pursuing real change which can often be controversial. The party is interested in not tipping the boat and attracting or suppressing voters. The Tea Party is much more of a movement for change but will probably be short term. But a good purge of both parties is healthy and way overdue.

 

mellestad wrote:

About the only thing I agree with them about is cutting back on superfluous and wasteful spending, but I'm going to support a lot more projects than the average Tea Partier would, and certainly more than any Libertarian would.  I think the current tax rate is just fine (Although of course it could be cleaned up), and I say that as someone who pays plenty of Federal, state and local taxes, it is isn't like I'm a lazy bum suckling at the government teat.

 

And when isn't government spending superfluous and wasteful? Maybe I'm a cynic, but it seems to me the very nature of government spending leads to waste and corruption. The people responsible for spending the money don't care and have no reason to care. They are spending someone else's money and receive far more personal gain from providing a few kickbacks to the right friends than from doing their job efficiently. Maybe throwing a few out will scare  them straight for awhile but when people calm down I have no doubt politicians will return to their current level of corruption. 

Compare that to say a charity like the Red Cross. If the Red Cross had the reputation Fema has of incompetence and waste do you think that people would continue to donate? Of course not. The Red Cross has incentive to perform well because if they don't, people will stop donating money. Government agencies continue to get money no matter what because it is taken by force. Personally, I would rather take the taxes I pay for social security and give it to an elderly person in need, I would rather donate the taxes I pay for medicare and medicaid to a hospital or other medical charity. Then I can watch those charities and make sure they spend my money wisely. If they don't I give elsewhere. I can't do that with the government. I can see where my money is wasted but I can't do anything about it without breaking serious laws. 

The Wal Mart class owns our government, both parties. But when I say that I get falsely accused of hating business ownership. I am against abuse, not personal desires. I do not see the corporate class doing a damn thing to make life affordable. The only way to stop this waste is to break up the monopolies of power that control our government.

If you allow the robbers to mind the store how can you expect the people being fleeced not to want someone to step in.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

mellestad wrote:

About the only thing I agree with them about is cutting back on superfluous and wasteful spending, but I'm going to support a lot more projects than the average Tea Partier would, and certainly more than any Libertarian would.  I think the current tax rate is just fine (Although of course it could be cleaned up), and I say that as someone who pays plenty of Federal, state and local taxes, it is isn't like I'm a lazy bum suckling at the government teat.

 

And when isn't government spending superfluous and wasteful? Maybe I'm a cynic, but it seems to me the very nature of government spending leads to waste and corruption. The people responsible for spending the money don't care and have no reason to care. They are spending someone else's money and receive far more personal gain from providing a few kickbacks to the right friends than from doing their job efficiently. Maybe throwing a few out will scare  them straight for awhile but when people calm down I have no doubt politicians will return to their current level of corruption. 

Compare that to say a charity like the Red Cross. If the Red Cross had the reputation Fema has of incompetence and waste do you think that people would continue to donate? Of course not. The Red Cross has incentive to perform well because if they don't, people will stop donating money. Government agencies continue to get money no matter what because it is taken by force. Personally, I would rather take the taxes I pay for social security and give it to an elderly person in need, I would rather donate the taxes I pay for medicare and medicaid to a hospital or other medical charity. Then I can watch those charities and make sure they spend my money wisely. If they don't I give elsewhere. I can't do that with the government. I can see where my money is wasted but I can't do anything about it without breaking serious laws. 

This isn't an argument against government spending, this is an argument against the voting class being too apathetic to intervene politically where it benefits them.

Charity is great, but if charity was good enough no-one would have had the political will to enact things like social security and keep it around in the first place.  If the Red Cross was good enough, there would be no FEMA.  You can hate the programs all you want, but I'm not aware of any nation in the world where citizens take care of citizens and everything works out peachy.  

My continual complaint against libertarianism is it is wishful utopian thinking.  If you like to read sci-fi read the book, "Freehold" (http://www.amazon.com/Freehold-Michael-Z-Williamson/dp/0743471792) it lays out a Libertarian society in good detail, and is a good book if you like that sort of thing.  If someone could demonstrate that Libertarianism actually worked like that I'd be all for it.  

I think the idea is seductive, especially to a rural American like me who was raised with certain values that match Libertarian ideals.  Libertarianism *feels* right to me.

 

But I've never seen it demonstrated and because of that I can't support it.  Socialists can point to lots of countries that, like them or hate them, work.  What can a Libertarian point to?  The Free State Project?  They are the latest incarnation of the Libertarian ideal, and they can't even get enough people to form an independent community, even though they have loads of supporters.  Even in theory Libertarianism is a difficult path, and in reality people just aren't willing to do it...so we can't even know how a real Libertarian society works.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I also agree

Brian37 wrote:

I also agree that it needs to be far less convoluted. But I hate the stereotype that all poor people are lazy merely because they remain poor. I know two co-workers who live in nice middle class neighborhoods who DON'T have health care and are one disaster away from loosing everything. Our pay gap isn't just affecting the poor.

If they are that close to disaster, why did they choose to live in a nice middle class neighborhood? Maybe they should have bought a smaller house and bought health insurance.

 

Brian37 wrote:

It is fucking absurd that a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas, and even the oil industry and the countries that have the most influence admit that they are ripping the rest of the world off and DON'T CARE!

This is the hundredth time you have mentioned this like it is important. 1. Milk is perishable it must be moved quickly while being refrigerated and stored in a refrigerator. Gasoline can sit in storage without temperature controls indefinitely. 2. Cows die and need to be replaced which is expensive. 3. Milk has a much lower supply than oil, low supply leads to higher prices. 4. Cows need to be fed treated by vets etc. Why do you focus on milk anyway? It is hardly a high profit item. Coke on the other hand is extremely high profit and depending on where you buy it can be substantially more expensive than gas.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I find it ironic that the NFL team owners would argue against salary caps for themselves, but have absolutely no problem putting a salary cap on the players who make them rich.

The reason for the team caps is to prevent one wealthy team from paying out mega-bucks to get all of the best players. It has nothing to do with trying to limit how much is paid to the players. The design keeps most NFL teams competitive and is actually a form of socialism. One of the few forms of socialism I support. Watch some college football and you can see the wide variance in team quality because only a handful of colleges offer enough incentives and scholarships to attract the quality players. With the NFL, teams all being capped at the same level forces teams to choose whether to shell out the dough for the big name quarterback or the big name halfback rather than reaching into the wallet and paying for both.

Owning an NFL team isn't even that profitable when compared to other investments one could make. For example, the Packers only turned a profit of $20.1 million in 2009 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d810ec974/article/recession-hasnt-sacked-packers-as-team-turns-201m-operating-profit which is an extremely small profit for a billion dollar investment. That is only a 2% per year return. Of course, you get a little more profit then that when you sell the team but overall it isn't something you do to make money. Billionaires invest in it because they love the sport. Any billionaire could turn a much higher profit investing their billion elsewhere. Sure some teams do better but from a shear economic standpoint investing in an NFL team is a poor choice.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Most poor people, most people in general are NOT lazy. But they should not be subject to being indentured slaves because some corporate fat cat or share holder wants more money.

I'm lazy, I don't see why others would be different. Personally I have nothing against laziness, only when people expect me to fund it. I have to earn the money to be lazy. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I think that black guy from the NY Governor's debate said it best, "THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH"

And it is, not because the poor are lazy or want to be lazy, but because those at the top don't want speed limits or rules.

No, its because there isn't enough room in New York for everyone to live. Not that I understand why anyone would want to live in New York. Every big city is the same, the closer you are to downtown the more expensive the rent because it is really convenient. But it is physically impossible for EVERYONE who would like to be able to walk to their downtown job to live in a downtown apartment. So high prices limits demand for those apartments. Again, low supply creates high prices every time it is tried. The real estate and taxes on a downtown apartment are also much higher so the evil rich landlord might be making a higher profit from the lower rent apartments on the edges of the slum than from the fancy downtown apartment.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The design keeps most

Quote:
The design keeps most NFL teams competitive and is actually a form of socialism.

RIGHT!

So when the right wing bitches about socialism it seems a bit hypocritical to say, "It's ok when I do it, but not when you do it".

It is not either or like I have said consistently. Just like it would be immoral to privatize police and fire departments, it would end up that only those who could afford it, would get it. I don't think education or health care should be all public or all private. But the big companies don't want any public option bringing down their profit margin, which puts a leach in a cubical between you and your doctor.

Do not defend the pay gap, it is unsustainable. We WILL end up looking like China if the cost of living keeps going up and wages stay the same. Our economy has been a race to the bottom because profits are more important than people. Our government only seems interested in bowing to the richest 2%.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote: The

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The design keeps most NFL teams competitive and is actually a form of socialism.

RIGHT!

So when the right wing bitches about socialism it seems a bit hypocritical to say, "It's ok when I do it, but not when you do it".

It is not either or like I have said consistently. Just like it would be immoral to privatize police and fire departments, it would end up that only those who could afford it, would get it. I don't think education or health care should be all public or all private. But the big companies don't want any public option bringing down their profit margin, which puts a leach in a cubical between you and your doctor.

Do not defend the pay gap, it is unsustainable. We WILL end up looking like China if the cost of living keeps going up and wages stay the same. Our economy has been a race to the bottom because profits are more important than people. Our government only seems interested in bowing to the richest 2%.

 

I have no problem with voluntary socialism. The NFL co-ops etc are fine with me. If you don't like it, don't buy an NFL team. (I would if I could) Now when the government becomes involved, it is no longer my choice. When the government comes in with a "public option" while at the same time passing laws designed to put private insurers out of business you have forced socialism. If you want universal healthcare it is fine with me. Set it up with your own money. Get together with everyone else who howls about it being the most important thing our country needs and create a giant high risk pool that bases its charges on a persons ability to pay. No one is stopping you. Why is it necessary to force it on the rest of us?

 

You brought up schools, another great example. Wisconsin attempted to set up a voucher program where the money that would be spent on a student could be brought to any school public or private. The problem? They limited it to a couple thousand students who had to enter a lottery to get the voucher. The program was a great success for those lucky enough to get a voucher but when the idea to expand it to allow everyone to get a voucher the teacher unions went ape shit. Because they knew everyone would leave the failing inner city schools and teachers would lose their jobs. The public school system only exists because most people don't have the money to pay for a private school. If you give every person control over the money we are spending anyway, nine times out of ten they will go to a private school. Give people the freedom and choice. Give them control over the money that is spent on the student to send it to whatever school they believe will provide the best education.

 

A person making more money does not harm you in any way unless that money is taken by force, which only happens when government is involved. Otherwise, if you are voluntarily buying their product or are voluntarily working for them at whatever wage you negotiated their success does not harm you in any way. It is fairly easy to save up enough money to start your own business if you don't want to work for someone else. Instead of buying the nice house, you could save up 50k which is more than enough to start a new business in many fields. In America, you are still allowed to start your own business and sink or swim based on your merits. If you want to make more money, go make more money. No one is stopping you. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't saying the NFL

I wasn't saying the NFL shouldn't have socialistic aspects. I was saying that those corporate types are hypocrites if they do.

I hate to tell you this but we do have forced socialistic aspects of our government. Police are not voluntary to pay for, nor firemen nor public schools nor social security, nor military All of those things everyone pays for and if you dont pay your taxes you get arrested.

Quote:
If you want to make more money, go make more money. No one is stopping you.

And if I don't? Am I deserving of death? If the amount a person makes in a paycheck constitutes morality then why don't we have laws arresting anyone not making a certain amount by a certain time in their lives?

I do not think poverty should be treated like a crime, nor do I think the poor should be indentured slaves to dept and work because shareholders and CEOs think they should want what they have.

Inequity in an open market will happen and should happen and it takes all three classes to work. But you have got to be off your rocker if you think the pay gap in America is sustainable. The pay gap is horribly lopsided and the corporate class is doing nothing for the workers and blaming the workers and blackmailing government to protect their profits.

I do not expect you to stay poor if you don't want to be poor, but I am damned tired of the poor being condemned as if it is a crime.

Would it make you happy if we looked like China? I am sure the shareholders and CEOs would be happy but those at the bottom would be nothing but slaves. As I see it not only are the poor slaves but even the middle class is having a hard time making ends meet.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Are you

jcgadfly wrote:

Are you admitting that the Libertarian party will provide no change?

Most people that call themselves Libertarian, don't really believe in Liberty. They believe in special rights for themselves that deny other people liberty(private land ownership for example). The reason you think I'm a right wing nut is because I oppose all the leftists here and there tons of special 'rights' without any mandatory obligations just for making it through the birth canal.

I believe in rational social contracts, where no one has rights just for being born. You have to give up something to get anything, otherwise we'll have a world of continuous conflict, poverty and war.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The only thing

Brian37 wrote:

The only thing nutty to me is that our country is bent on becoming like the sweat shops in China.

So you're in favor of mandatory birth control and closing off immigration and trade from countries that don't practice this?

Otherwise population growth is just going to create enough misery that we do become a horrible place to live.

Another Inconvenient Truth: The World's Growing Population Poses a Malthusian Dilemma

 

P.S. China will own our ass in 30 years.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I hate to tell

Brian37 wrote:

I hate to tell you this but we do have forced socialistic aspects of our government. Police are not voluntary to pay for, nor firemen nor public schools nor social security, nor military All of those things everyone pays for and if you dont pay your taxes you get arrested.

I know and I thought I have made it pretty clear that I have a problem with most of them. I wouldn't consider the military, police or fire protection socialistic because by their nature everyone benefits equally from them. Your not taking money from one person to benefit another, the government is taking money from you as a cost for your own protection. Military and police protection is the main function of society and the reason for creating a country. If we didn't need military and police protection I would be an anarchist. But since there are assholes in the world we need them as a necessary evil.   

I am against public schools and social security. I know there are many forced socialist aspects of our government, that is why we have the mess we have now.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
If you want to make more money, go make more money. No one is stopping you.

And if I don't? Am I deserving of death? If the amount a person makes in a paycheck constitutes morality then why don't we have laws arresting anyone not making a certain amount by a certain time in their lives?

I do not think poverty should be treated like a crime, nor do I think the poor should be indentured slaves to dept and work because shareholders and CEOs think they should want what they have.

Where did I ever imply anything like that? Making money is not a moral or immoral act. If you want more, make more, if you don't want more don't make more. It is very simple. I was just commenting that those "poor" that are "indentured slaves" aren't being forced to work for anybody. If they don't like it they can do something else. No one is going to throw them in jail for quitting their job and starting a new business (unless that business is selling drugs or something illegal which I also believe should be legalized)

 

Brian37 wrote:

Inequity in an open market will happen and should happen and it takes all three classes to work. But you have got to be off your rocker if you think the pay gap in America is sustainable. The pay gap is horribly lopsided and the corporate class is doing nothing for the workers and blaming the workers and blackmailing government to protect their profits.

I do not expect you to stay poor if you don't want to be poor, but I am damned tired of the poor being condemned as if it is a crime.

Would it make you happy if we looked like China? I am sure the shareholders and CEOs would be happy but those at the bottom would be nothing but slaves. As I see it not only are the poor slaves but even the middle class is having a hard time making ends meet.

 

Who is condemning poor as being a crime? If you want to be poor I don't give a shit. I was poor once, and in debt up to my ears, I don't particularly care to do it again but I don't care what you or anyone else does. I do care when someone is poor and blames it on me. I had nothing to do with it. And neither did Bill Gates or the Waltons. If your poor, it is a result of your actions and choices. Some people, like my brother, are perfectly happy to be poor. Others I know, are obsessed with becoming rich. I fall in the middle. I like to be comfortable but am too lazy to seek true richness. Making ends meet in America is ridiculously easy. You don't see people starving to death in the streets and most of us have more junk than we know what to do with. The "poor" in America are  an envy to a good portion of the world. If your income is at poverty level you can still live a life of comfort compared to the vast majority of the worlds population.

 

One of the most successful companies last quarter was Apple which does not sell anything that is required to survive. You don't need a nice house, nice sports car, a smartphone or cable to survive. I know a lot of Americans don't understand that. If you want to buy that stuff fine, but don't whine to me when you end up tied to a job you don't like because your in debt up to your ears. You also have the choice to start your own business and take on the risks and potential rewards that brings and wait on the stuff until after you are successful. Make your choices and live with them for better or worse.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I hate to tell you this but we do have forced socialistic aspects of our government. Police are not voluntary to pay for, nor firemen nor public schools nor social security, nor military All of those things everyone pays for and if you dont pay your taxes you get arrested.

I know and I thought I have made it pretty clear that I have a problem with most of them. I wouldn't consider the military, police or fire protection socialistic because by their nature everyone benefits equally from them. Your not taking money from one person to benefit another, the government is taking money from you as a cost for your own protection. Military and police protection is the main function of society and the reason for creating a country. If we didn't need military and police protection I would be an anarchist. But since there are assholes in the world we need them as a necessary evil.   

I am against public schools and social security. I know there are many forced socialist aspects of our government, that is why we have the mess we have now.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
If you want to make more money, go make more money. No one is stopping you.

And if I don't? Am I deserving of death? If the amount a person makes in a paycheck constitutes morality then why don't we have laws arresting anyone not making a certain amount by a certain time in their lives?

I do not think poverty should be treated like a crime, nor do I think the poor should be indentured slaves to dept and work because shareholders and CEOs think they should want what they have.

Where did I ever imply anything like that? Making money is not a moral or immoral act. If you want more, make more, if you don't want more don't make more. It is very simple. I was just commenting that those "poor" that are "indentured slaves" aren't being forced to work for anybody. If they don't like it they can do something else. No one is going to throw them in jail for quitting their job and starting a new business (unless that business is selling drugs or something illegal which I also believe should be legalized)

 

Brian37 wrote:

Inequity in an open market will happen and should happen and it takes all three classes to work. But you have got to be off your rocker if you think the pay gap in America is sustainable. The pay gap is horribly lopsided and the corporate class is doing nothing for the workers and blaming the workers and blackmailing government to protect their profits.

I do not expect you to stay poor if you don't want to be poor, but I am damned tired of the poor being condemned as if it is a crime.

Would it make you happy if we looked like China? I am sure the shareholders and CEOs would be happy but those at the bottom would be nothing but slaves. As I see it not only are the poor slaves but even the middle class is having a hard time making ends meet.

 

Who is condemning poor as being a crime? If you want to be poor I don't give a shit. I was poor once, and in debt up to my ears, I don't particularly care to do it again but I don't care what you or anyone else does. I do care when someone is poor and blames it on me. I had nothing to do with it. And neither did Bill Gates or the Waltons. If your poor, it is a result of your actions and choices. Some people, like my brother, are perfectly happy to be poor. Others I know, are obsessed with becoming rich. I fall in the middle. I like to be comfortable but am too lazy to seek true richness. Making ends meet in America is ridiculously easy. You don't see people starving to death in the streets and most of us have more junk than we know what to do with. The "poor" in America are  an envy to a good portion of the world. If your income is at poverty level you can still live a life of comfort compared to the vast majority of the worlds population.

 

One of the most successful companies last quarter was Apple which does not sell anything that is required to survive. You don't need a nice house, nice sports car, a smartphone or cable to survive. I know a lot of Americans don't understand that. If you want to buy that stuff fine, but don't whine to me when you end up tied to a job you don't like because your in debt up to your ears. You also have the choice to start your own business and take on the risks and potential rewards that brings and wait on the stuff until after you are successful. Make your choices and live with them for better or worse.

 

"SUCCESSFUL"

You really think life is a script and that everyone has to be a clone of you and if they don't make a certain amount by a certain age they are losers? Fine, the next time you pass by a car accent and the person is poor, let them die. Hell, why not just shoot them, after all, they are worthless. It is not like they do work you don't want to do yourself.

If you want me to cry for someone making 500,000,000 because their taxes are raised, BOO FRIGGEN HOO.

FYI, I have never kept a job I didn't like and I am not in dept.

Why does it bug you that other people may not want or need as much as you? If poor people are trash, then kill them and throw them away like trash. Otherwise, accept that there has to be a minimum standard so that they too can survive.

Quote:
you can still live a life of comfort compared to the vast majority of the worlds population.

You don't realize that our pay gap is making our Economy a race to the bottom. If you want us to look like China's slave labor and India's sweat shops, keep it up.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if you know

I don't know if you know that much about Thomas Jefferson, but he hated banks and he hated the exploitation of big industry. I think what we are seeing in America and Europe right now demonstrates quite aptly his attitude.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If your poor, it is a

Quote:
If your poor, it is a result of your actions

So being poor is a crime. Otherwise my choice of not wanting or needing as much as you think you need would cause you to make that remark.

I hate to tell you this, but as much as you'd like to think you did all the work to get where you are at, that is utter bullshit. Doing your best is a given in life, if anything, I would hope we can agree on that. It is not all luck or all work but a combo of both.

But you seem to make it crime for me to say "HEY guys, I am happy where I am at"

If it is not a crime, then don't ignore the pay gap. Otherwise we will look like those countries you say would kill for my dwellings.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

"SUCCESSFUL"

You really think life is a script and that everyone has to be a clone of you and if they don't make a certain amount by a certain age they are losers? Fine, the next time you pass by a car accent and the person is poor, let them die. Hell, why not just shoot them, after all, they are worthless. It is not like they do work you don't want to do yourself.

If you want me to cry for someone making 500,000,000 because their taxes are raised, BOO FRIGGEN HOO.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I know it pisses you off when people do it to you so stop doing it to me. Apple was one of the most successful in that their GOAL is to make profits and they made the most. By definition when you achieve your goal you  are successful. As I SPECIFICALLY said, I don't give a crap how much anyone makes. They can make more or less than me and I don't care. You can live like me or you can live like someone else, I couldn't care less. I don't want to punish them and I don't want them to die. Nor did I ever say they were worthless. If your goal is to make money, good luck. If your goal is to live in poverty and donate all your time to a charity or even a fucking missionary I don't care. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

FYI, I have never kept a job I didn't like and I am not in dept.

Why does it bug you that other people may not want or need as much as you? If poor people are trash, then kill them and throw them away like trash. Otherwise, accept that there has to be a minimum standard so that they too can survive.

As I have said a million times it doesn't bug me that people live in poverty. Most people want substantially more than me. I live far below my income level. My point is, you said you know people who make middle class incomes but barely make ends meet. That is THEIR fault. Obviously they are spending too much. It is perfectly possible to live a reasonably comfortable life in America at poverty level. You can survive on 12k a year. You can make more than that a McDonalds. It isn't the most comfortable life and I wouldn't choose it but you can survive even without government assistance. When you add in all the government programs you would qualify for you can survive that much easier.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
you can still live a life of comfort compared to the vast majority of the worlds population.

You don't realize that our pay gap is making our Economy a race to the bottom. If you want us to look like China's slave labor and India's sweat shops, keep it up.

And do you have any economic evidence that this is happening whatsoever or has ever happened in another country? China's sweatshops don't exist because they had a capitalist economy, they exist because the government controls the companies and sets price and wage controls. When Bill Gates made his billions he lifted the entire US economy and led to many more Americans getting HIGHER real wages. When innovation is happening the lifestyle of the average person improves. Walmart makes everyone who shops their richer in real terms by providing products cheaper than anyone else can which means I can buy more groceries in Walmart than the same amount of money would get me at IGA. How is the poor person harmed?

Explain to me how someone who gets rich honestly harms anyone else. If they are providing a product or service that the public is voluntarily buying they are doing nothing but helping increase the standard of living. That is why we have the best damn standard of living in the world. I want to keep it that way.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:If your

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
If your poor, it is a result of your actions

So being poor is a crime. Otherwise my choice of not wanting or needing as much as you think you need would cause you to make that remark.

I hate to tell you this, but as much as you'd like to think you did all the work to get where you are at, that is utter bullshit. Doing your best is a given in life, if anything, I would hope we can agree on that. It is not all luck or all work but a combo of both.

But you seem to make it crime for me to say "HEY guys, I am happy where I am at"

If it is not a crime, then don't ignore the pay gap. Otherwise we will look like those countries you say would kill for my dwellings.

 

WTF.... I didn't say it was a crime. If you are poor and happy there fine. You are the one obsessing about the pay gap. I don't give a shit about it. If one person wants to be poor and another wants to be rich I am cool with that. You are the one who has a problem with it. I'm saying if your happy where you are at fine. I'm happy too so leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

 

And yes I did all the fucking work to get to where I am at. There was no "luck" involved. I risked everything I had and put my ass on the line. The first time I lost it all and more. I learned from my mistakes and tried it again. I didn't get where I'm at because I knew the right person or bought the right lottery ticket. I got here because I decided to get here and did what was necessary to make it happen. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't know

Brian37 wrote:

I don't know if you know that much about Thomas Jefferson, but he hated banks and he hated the exploitation of big industry. I think what we are seeing in America and Europe right now demonstrates quite aptly his attitude.

 

Thomas Jefferson was very much against GOVERNMENT banks and he was very much against the government getting involved with big industry. (Of course he also hated private banks too because he was deeply in debt his entire life, everyone in debt hates the bank) And yes, we should eliminate the fed and yes our government should have nothing to do with big industry. He would probably burst a blood vessel if he say the bloated government we have today. The big fight between him and Hamilton was precisely over this point, and by todays standards Hamilton would probably be considered right wing. I would be perfectly happy with Jefferson as President right now. The man was a genius. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Just to butt in, I don't

Just to butt in, I don't think you can survive at 12k per year long term.  That only works if you are healthy.  Even if you avoid any illness or injury when you are young, once you start getting older you'll be done for.  You can't make enough at 12k to pay for food/shelter/medical without assistance.

 

I think you can make the case for socialized health care even if you are a libertarian.  The only reason no-one thought to classify basic health care as an original right in the 1st amendment is it wasn't possible given the level of technology and economy.  I'm surprised you don't see health care classified right along with military and police spending....all three are about safety and the ability to live life as you see fit.  Why should the government have a right to tax you to hire cops to protect from thieves, but not tax you to hire doctors to protect you from disease and injury?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The Wal Mart

Brian37 wrote:

The Wal Mart class owns our government, both parties. But when I say that I get falsely accused of hating business ownership. I am against abuse, not personal desires. I do not see the corporate class doing a damn thing to make life affordable. The only way to stop this waste is to break up the monopolies of power that control our government.

I agree with that, but I think that the government power also needs to be reduced so that there's no incentive for corporations to take advantage of it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm lazy, I don't see why others would be different. Personally I have nothing against laziness, only when people expect me to fund it. I have to earn the money to be lazy.

Laziness is fine when applied properly. Many great inventions were created because people wanted to do less hard work. Sticking out tongue

mellestad wrote:

I think you can make the case for socialized health care even if you are a libertarian.

I'd love for everyone to have access to affordable health care. It just needs to be economically feasible, and I don't think anyone's in a position to do that in a recession.

As a libertarian, I'm trying to keep my distance from the Tea Party movement. There's a couple of good people in it who actually know what they're talking about, but mostly it's a populist movement. It's very conservative (many people in this country are), and it's being used to put anybody into power that says the magic words "cut spending, cut taxes". I'm all for being against the government, but I have a problem with empty rhetoric with no intellectual backing behind it.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Just to butt

mellestad wrote:

Just to butt in, I don't think you can survive at 12k per year long term.  That only works if you are healthy.  Even if you avoid any illness or injury when you are young, once you start getting older you'll be done for.  You can't make enough at 12k to pay for food/shelter/medical without assistance.

 

I think you can make the case for socialized health care even if you are a libertarian.  The only reason no-one thought to classify basic health care as an original right in the 1st amendment is it wasn't possible given the level of technology and economy.  I'm surprised you don't see health care classified right along with military and police spending....all three are about safety and the ability to live life as you see fit.  Why should the government have a right to tax you to hire cops to protect from thieves, but not tax you to hire doctors to protect you from disease and injury?

 

 

If government is going to pay for healthcare why not food which is a much more immediate necessity? You may or may not survive without healthcare, you will die without food rather quickly. True, if you tried to live off 12k a year for the rest of your life you will probably be forced to go to a charity or government hospital to get any kind of care and the care you get will be subpar. I wouldn't recommend it but if that is how you want to live your life it is your business. If you want to go to a cheap motel and shoot up on heroine you will die early too. I wouldn't recommend it but if you choose to do so that is your business.

 

Military and police can only be provided by a government and whoever is providing military and police essentially becomes the government because they are the ones with force. Without an organized military and police force you have no laws and you have anarchy and whoever is able to and wants to will seize power. Both are designed to protect us from external threats not from ourselves. So if my poor decisions leaves me in a situation where I am reliant on the charity of a doctor that is my problem. If another government is attacking the country, then it is the governments role to try to protect it. The police do much the same thing except on a domestic level. It keeps your neighbor from coming over and killing or stealing from you and it is because of that threat that we must have government at all. The government protects you from other people (and them from you) and then you can take care of yourself and your family.

 

And since housing, food, water and clothing were not included as rights it seems absurd to claim the founders would have included healthcare. They were much more interested in limiting what the government could do rather than having the government hand out goodies. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote:Laziness

El-ahrairah wrote:

Laziness is fine when applied properly. Many great inventions were created because people wanted to do less hard work. Sticking out tongue

lol, so true.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Indeed, why not food?  We

Indeed, why not food?  We already do this, you need to be totally non-functional somehow to starve in America (or really unlucky).

Again, in the beginning who could have paid for it?  The suggestion would have been absurd.  I don't see why it is now.  Like I said, we already do.  We already do with healthcare now anyway since if a hospital takes Federal dollars it cannot turn away emergency cases.  Which is silly, you can only get 'free' care when it gets so bad you might die.

 

Are you arguing that China is an external threat to the individual but cancer and polio are not?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote:mellestad

El-ahrairah wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I think you can make the case for socialized health care even if you are a libertarian.

I'd love for everyone to have access to affordable health care. It just needs to be economically feasible, and I don't think anyone's in a position to do that in a recession.

At the end of the day I don't think public healthcare would cost our society more than the current semi-private system, with the upside of covering everyone.

I don't have a problem with the wealthy being able to get advanced care either, like I said, I would only consider 'basic' healthcare, which would not include experimental or extraordinarily expensive things.  Naturally, that list would change over time.

My own private healthcare is certainly superior to anything I could get through the government.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 We already have healthcare

 We already have healthcare to in the form of medicare and medicaid. What we are talking about now is not help for only the purely destitute/incompetent we are talking about "universal" healthcare for everyone. There are people who are mentally incapable of taking care of themselves and we should do something to help them. I have minor problems with welfare/medicaid/foodstamps but they are hardly major issues to me and generally stem from my belief that private charities can do the work much better at lower cost than government. And I believe hospitals should be given far more collection power in terms of ER visits but the vast majority of money lost in hospitals is to medicare/medicaid bills not being paid. ER visits make up a rather small portion of the problem. And most hospitals have charity funds to take care of such things. I'm a big fan of charity, if you want universal healthcare start a universal healthcare charity, I might donate.

   Yes, China attacking is a threat to everyone in the country. A person who steals or murders someone is a threat to everyone. Cancer is a threat to the person with cancer. If a disease is contagious I can see an argument can be made that it now threatens everyone and the government must take steps to attempt to contain the outbreak, but for your everyday diseases it is your personal issue.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You keep saying "If they are

You keep saying "If they are poor it is their fault".

If you don't want to sound like you are treating poverty like a crime, then don't speak in terms of fault.

You cant seem to get this through your head. Inequity in an open market has to exist. If everyone were all rich or all poor nothing would get done.

I am merely criticizing the pay gap and the cost of living. Unless you want us looking like China and India you have to address these things.

I do not think people at the low end because of the cost of rent and food and bills should be subject to only living to work. I never said they should mooch or that they shouldn't do their best. I am merely suggesting better pay and lower cost of the basics so that they can have a life outside of work.

A lot of our social ills are due to the pay gap. And if someone stays poor their entire lives, and many do, they should at least have a livable minimum standard, which we do not have in this country. It is getting worse and if it continues we will have two classes instead of three.

I do not want a nanny state, nor do I want the increasing "every man for themselves" corporate anarchy we have now. It is not either or for me.

I do not blame all rich people so do me a favor and don't demonize poverty by using words like "fault" or "blame".

I would say that a good economy is much like the PH and temperature in a tropical fish tank. Too far in either direction and the fish die. It is not a matter of wanting Robin Hood to rob the rich to pay the poor. It is a matter of people falsely buying the utopia that life follows a script and those who don't have deserve what they get, even though they are the ones doing the physical labor to put those who have at the top.

So stop your Huckleberry Finn crap. If you want to be the guy paying people to paint the fence, I have no problem with that. But when a gallon of milk costs 3:50 and a gallon of gas costs almost 3 bucks and rent is through the roof, don't be rediculous and say, "just do this or that" when the gap is relatively the same all over the country.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You keep

Brian37 wrote:

You keep saying "If they are poor it is their fault".

If you don't want to sound like you are treating poverty like a crime, then don't speak in terms of fault.

If you are rich it is your fault too. I am simply arguing that your financial situation in America is primarily a result of your choices and actions not a result of someone else's actions unless someone robbed from you. Maybe fault is a bad word since it has a negative connotation but I think you get what I mean.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You cant seem to get this through your head. Inequity in an open market has to exist. If everyone were all rich or all poor nothing would get done.

I am merely criticizing the pay gap and the cost of living. Unless you want us looking like China and India you have to address these things.

You just said the pay gap must exist but we have to get rid of it? I am arguing that the pay gap exists and that is ok. Yes inequity in an open market will exist and I would argue SHOULD exist. You are the one complaining about its existence.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I do not think people at the low end because of the cost of rent and food and bills should be subject to only living to work. I never said they should mooch or that they shouldn't do their best. I am merely suggesting better pay and lower cost of the basics so that they can have a life outside of work.

And lower costs and better pay have routinely been proven to be provided by a free and open market. Walmart provides more goods at lower costs than any of its competitors while providing a competitive wage yet is one of your favorite targets to bitch about.

 

Brian37 wrote:

A lot of our social ills are due to the pay gap. And if someone stays poor their entire lives, and many do, they should at least have a livable minimum standard, which we do not have in this country. It is getting worse and if it continues we will have two classes instead of three.

And they do. In the US the poor are better off than anywhere else in the world, mostly due to our free and open market. And we already have government programs like welfare, medicaid and foodstamps to help the truly destitute as well as a fairly decent charity system. I would like to see more charities and less government but that really is a detail.

In a free market, employers will always try to set wages at a level that provides the best talent at the lowest cost. Employees will always try to get the highest wage for whatever work they do. Consumers will always try to get the best value at the lowest cost. Sometimes, the market will favor the employer such as now when unemployment is high and workers are willing to accept lower wages. Other times the market will favor the employee like during the 90's when unemployment was low and a quality employee threatening to quit scared the hell out of an employer because it would take forever to higher a new person that is qualified. Wages go up and down in a free market and that is ok. Free markets ALWAYS over correct one way or the other. After over correcting it will go the other way if it is left alone. It doesn't lead to China and you can't provide any evidence that it does because in the history of the world it never has and so far free markets have done the exact opposite.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I would say that a good economy is much like the PH and temperature in a tropical fish tank. Too far in either direction and the fish die. It is not a matter of wanting Robin Hood to rob the rich to pay the poor. It is a matter of people falsely buying the utopia that life follows a script and those who don't have deserve what they get, even though they are the ones doing the physical labor to put those who have at the top.

Do you have any evidence of that? Economies always go up and down. A free economy, after going too far down, will turn around and go up. After going too far up it will go down. At the end of the day, the fish continue to survive. When you look at economies that have failed to recover you will find that the government was always involved in trying to control the supply and distribution of money, leading to massive inflation and devaluing of the currency to the point of no return. Interestingly, the Fed is expected to intentionally devalue the dollar by purchasing our own debt at their meeting this month which is basically just printing money and increasing the money supply. When you increase the money supply the money's value drops (being a millionaire doesn't mean much if everyone else is a millionaire). Based on history such an action can be expected to cause massive inflation. The dollar is slightly different compared to historical comparisons because it is not based on gold and the American dollar is the most used currency in international trade. There is a theoretical argument to be made that the dollar will not weaken as much as some predict because the rest of the world would destroy themselves by not accepting the dollar so they will continue to pretend it is worth something and the dollars value is based solely on what people believe it is worth. For our sake, I hope they are right, because if they are wrong our country is going to crash more spectacularly than any other economic collapse in history. In my personal financial planning, I am prepared for the worst and hope for the best.

As a general rule of thumb, physical labor is not the best way to become rich although I did meet a man who made a million dollars making sandwiches. If being rich is your goal you should focus on being the guy who hires physical labor. It comes with its own headaches. I was an employer once and I sold the business because I didn't like it. Now I am the one doing the "physical" labor because I prefer it and have made it clear to my boss I do not want a management position. I make far less money than I could otherwise but it is my choice, there are things more important to me than money.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

So stop your Huckleberry Finn crap. If you want to be the guy paying people to paint the fence, I have no problem with that. But when a gallon of milk costs 3:50 and a gallon of gas costs almost 3 bucks and rent is through the roof, don't be rediculous and say, "just do this or that" when the gap is relatively the same all over the country

 

What is it with you and milk? Big milk isn't that rich. I grew up in dairy country, it is REALLY hard to make a decent living selling milk so give them a fucking break. Trust me when I tell you if I was the one getting your milk you would have to pay me way more than $3.50 a gallon to get it. Be thankful there are people willing to provide milk to you at such a low profit.

And I thought you said we needed three classes? By definition to have three classes you MUST have a pay gap. I fail to see how your logic connects. I don't care about the classes, my only concern is whether or not a person has the freedom to make the amount of money they want to make whether that amount is a big number or a small number. In America you do. No one is stopping you from owning your own business and making a huge profit or if that isn't your thing, no one is stopping you from becoming a laborer for the rest of your life. It is your choice. And the pay gap will continue to be the same all over the country and will vary a little with the market because generally the percentage of people who want to own businesses and will make them successful and the percentage of people who decide to work on the labor side stays about the same.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: We

Beyond Saving wrote:

 We already have healthcare to in the form of medicare and medicaid. What we are talking about now is not help for only the purely destitute/incompetent we are talking about "universal" healthcare for everyone. There are people who are mentally incapable of taking care of themselves and we should do something to help them. I have minor problems with welfare/medicaid/foodstamps but they are hardly major issues to me and generally stem from my belief that private charities can do the work much better at lower cost than government. And I believe hospitals should be given far more collection power in terms of ER visits but the vast majority of money lost in hospitals is to medicare/medicaid bills not being paid. ER visits make up a rather small portion of the problem. And most hospitals have charity funds to take care of such things. I'm a big fan of charity, if you want universal healthcare start a universal healthcare charity, I might donate.

   Yes, China attacking is a threat to everyone in the country. A person who steals or murders someone is a threat to everyone. Cancer is a threat to the person with cancer. If a disease is contagious I can see an argument can be made that it now threatens everyone and the government must take steps to attempt to contain the outbreak, but for your everyday diseases it is your personal issue.

 

Exactly.  And if Libertarians were serious, they'd all be donating to things like universal healthcare charities.  And somewhere, there would be a community of Libertarians where all of these services were provided by charity.  But no-one has ever shown that to work.  Ever.

How do you rationalize a murderer as a threat to everyone, but cancer as a threat to a specific person?  In both cases you usually only get one person, dead sooner rather than later and there is a societal cost to that.  By your argument I think police would only be able to go after multiple offenders, because if only one person is targeted it isn't a government issue. (Edit: I know that isn't what you mean, I'm just asking if your logic is consistent.)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What is

Beyond Saving wrote:

What is it with you and milk? Big milk isn't that rich. I grew up in dairy country, it is REALLY hard to make a decent living selling milk so give them a fucking break. Trust me when I tell you if I was the one getting your milk you would have to pay me way more than $3.50 a gallon to get it. Be thankful there are people willing to provide milk to you at such a low profit.

I live in dairy country, and I'm just confirming this.  Dairy people work at very tight margins.  The fact that you can get milk for $3.50 a gallon, packaged and delivered to a supermarket is actually pretty incredible.  The profit margins for non-organic milk products are razor thin.  Eggs and bread are the same way.

Margins are so thin for these staples that there are only three types of sellers:  1) Artisan sellers with high markups 2) 'small' producers that are members of co-ops banding together for strength 3) large agri-corps.  

Traditional small independent farms don't exist anymore, there isn't enough profit margin.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.