Thwowing a bone to Beyond, recent story on CNN, your thoughts.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thwowing a bone to Beyond, recent story on CNN, your thoughts.

Beyond, sometimes I really do get upset with you about economics because you think somehow I am against all business.

I just saw a story on food trucks, the kind that sell you sandwiches and drinks on the street corner. The story was on CNN about a war between restaurants and these lunch trucks in Chicago.

One thing bothers me. Apparently the city code forbids them to assemble or even cut the food on the truck, it all has to be prepared at the shop before the truck leaves. Admittedly without knowing the laws, I would bet that this has to do with sanitary issues.

BUT the other law is that these trucks cannot be 200 feet near a physical restaurant. I can kind of see this, BUT, the land owner's reason they interviewed is "that it wasn't fair" and that these trucks don't pay rent or taxes or have the overhead like they do. I didn't really buy this bullshit. I think it simply amounts to not wanting the competition that close.

I think that is a stupid argument though(not the distance, just the argument for the distance). To me that would be like a rental car company or car dealership bitching about taxis, "If they don't have to rent or buy a car they wont come to us", or "People shouldn't be allowed to get a ride from a friend because that friend is making it harder for us to sell the rideless person a car.

Here is how I see it. I am for the distance only because it would keep the peace more. But I don't buy the bullshit that a really established land joint is going to get hurt buy their presence.  But I wouldn't want a hot dog vendor two feet from my door either.

In my home town we have 3 breakfast places within 3 blocks of each other and none of them have gone out of business.

But, I am miffed in any case, why you'd have to assemble a sandwich wrap or BLT or meatball sub BEFORE you load it into the truck. But without knowing the REASON for the ban on preparing food on the truck, I cant say if it is needed or not. Like I said, it most likely has to do with sanitation issues.

My point is nothing is black and white to me and unless I know all the details, and the story was short, only describing complaints from both sides, and did not explain why certain laws were written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
My guess would be that the

My guess would be that the regulations were pushed by the restaurant industry to eliminate their competition, especially the distance requirements. Many of the regulations I bitch about were written by businesses. It has become fairly common practice for businesses to attempt to push regulations that benefit them or hurt their competition. Regulation has become a tool that is being used by businesses to make it difficult for newcomers and it is harming our free market.

 

The food preparation probably is because of sanitary concerns, although personally, I am much more comfortable watching how someone is handling my food on site than having it done behind the scene. I can see whether or not they are wearing gloves, if the meat is coming directly from the cooler, if the grill is being cleaned between uses etc. When it is done behind the scenes, I am trusting that they are being sanitary rather than seeing it myself. Even in restaurants, I have always preferred the open style kitchens that you can see into and I have been known to request seeing the kitchen before eating at an establishment. I don't really trust government inspectors to do a good job, I've watched Kitchen Nightmares.

 

There was a guy in Quincy, Illinois who offered free rides to drunks after his friend was killed by a drunk driver. He was providing a valuable service for the community and perhaps saving lives when the taxi companies got upset. They changed the regulations to make his activity illegal. 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/05/guy-offer-free-rides-to-keep-d

 

I could probably go on forever finding absurd government regulations and real people who paid fines or served jail time for violating them. At least at the local level, you have some chance of changing stupid regulations. On the federal level, I don't see how it could be done in any comprehensive way other than to throw out most of it and demand that we go back to a federalist style system. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:My guess

Beyond Saving wrote:

My guess would be that the regulations were pushed by the restaurant industry to eliminate their competition, especially the distance requirements. Many of the regulations I bitch about were written by businesses. It has become fairly common practice for businesses to attempt to push regulations that benefit them or hurt their competition. Regulation has become a tool that is being used by businesses to make it difficult for newcomers and it is harming our free market.

 

The food preparation probably is because of sanitary concerns, although personally, I am much more comfortable watching how someone is handling my food on site than having it done behind the scene. I can see whether or not they are wearing gloves, if the meat is coming directly from the cooler, if the grill is being cleaned between uses etc. When it is done behind the scenes, I am trusting that they are being sanitary rather than seeing it myself. Even in restaurants, I have always preferred the open style kitchens that you can see into and I have been known to request seeing the kitchen before eating at an establishment. I don't really trust government inspectors to do a good job, I've watched Kitchen Nightmares.

 

There was a guy in Quincy, Illinois who offered free rides to drunks after his friend was killed by a drunk driver. He was providing a valuable service for the community and perhaps saving lives when the taxi companies got upset. They changed the regulations to make his activity illegal. 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/05/guy-offer-free-rides-to-keep-d

 

I could probably go on forever finding absurd government regulations and real people who paid fines or served jail time for violating them. At least at the local level, you have some chance of changing stupid regulations. On the federal level, I don't see how it could be done in any comprehensive way other than to throw out most of it and demand that we go back to a federalist style system. 

Come on now dude, if you owned a restaurant of course you would not want a hot dog stand right outside your front door.  I don't think it has to do with eliminating competition as much as it is preventing people from steeling potential customers. I am not saying business doesn't do that. I but I don't think on the mom an pop level it is as much a problem as what you talk about on the corporate level. Bill Gates certainly goes for the monopoly.

But you bring up a point about people making regulations to benefit them and hurt their opposition. I think on a national political level, this is where I have an issue with you. I am quite sure I could find a list of things you are happy to pay for in taxes because those are things you like. I am no different. I am quite sure you could find things I am happy to pay for with my taxes.

So once again. Regarding this issue, even here, If money equals power then the restaurante owners have every right to stack the deck against the upstarts politically. So if you don't want monopolies, GREAT TO HEAR THAT, how do you use "no rules" to prevent them?  If stacking the deck is the problem which is what a monopoly is, wouldn't you need a law to prevent stacking the deck? POOF, THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

I am not saying that people don't try to stack the deck through government, THAT CAN  happen, but not everything in politics, when it comes to law making is always about hurting others, the laws may be good or bad, but maybe it is a case of people simply arguing for what they believe.

THAT is why I say nothing is black and white. I can see both sides of this. If I was one of these truck owners I would not want to be banned from the market. But I also wouldn't put my truck right in front of someone else's business selling food.  And if I owned a restaurante I wouldn't want a truck two feet off my curb in front of my front door.

Now you just admitted government can be used to hurt others, I personally don't think that is always the case, but I agree that it can and does happen, sure.

WHICH IS WHY I HAVE BEEN SAYING, anything left to it's own devices, political, religious, or business, can go off the rails, IE the restaurant owners creating a monopoly to keep the truck owners out.

So what makes you think that if someone has tons of money, not just a mom and pop shop, but TONS of money, that they won't use it to hurt someone of another political party, religion, class OR business?

I think you and I are more on the same page than you want to admit. We are not in disagreement about more competition, and we both are anti-monopoly.

SO THE ISSUE ONCE AGAIN IS HOW

I think the "no rules" and "less regulation" we have had for the past 30 years has made things worse, not better.

NOW that is not to say I am in love with the over spending on both parties, I am not. EVERY PRESIDENT since I was a kid has expanded government. It is simply a matter of what each party spends our money on.

It cannot be no government vs government run economy. Those are absurd extremes,

But without taxes we wouldn't have cops, firemen, judges, our military or even our elected officials.

SO HOW do you make laws that are neutral and fair, without oppressing business AND without creating a wild west atmosphere where a monopoly can take hold?

And as far as the taxi companies doing that, BULLSHIT, I agree that is an abuse of power.

 

 

"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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I am quite

Brian37 wrote:

 I am quite sure I could find a list of things you are happy to pay for in taxes because those are things you like. I am no different.

Try me. The only things I approve of federal spending on is those few things listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Sure, there are a handful of things that bug me less because I like them but just because I happen to like something is not a good enough reason to take money from someone else to pay for it. 

 

Now of course any large business is trying to get a monopoly. Why wouldn't they? The goal of a business is to make money, the amount of money you make is related to how large of a market share you have. I don't have a problem with a monopoly that is using market forces. If a company has a monopoly because everyone is choosing to purchase their product over their competitors, great. In our modern world, it is virtually impossible to have a true monopoly without government aid. It is simply too easy to transport goods and to advertise large scale. 

 

In the food truck example, if a food truck parks close to a restaurant and is able to attract a significant enough market share that the restaurant closes down, I don't have a problem. Apparently, the food truck is offering food that customers believe is better, either because it is cheaper, tastier or both. Capitalism is a bitch, and if you can't find a way to compete, your business SHOULD fail. In reality, I have a hard time seeing a food truck actually make a difference to a restaurants revenue- they typically serve very different styles of food and offer a completely different dining experience. If I desired to eat at a restaurant, I am unlikely to settle for a food truck. (Unless said restaurant is fast food like McDonalds) So I suspect that the desire for the distance ban was more emotional than a rational business decision. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

So what makes you think that if someone has tons of money, not just a mom and pop shop, but TONS of money, that they won't use it to hurt someone of another political party, religion, class OR business?

They do, all the time, it is called government. How does someone with tons of money hurt someone without using government?

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

It cannot be no government vs government run economy. Those are absurd extremes,

But without taxes we wouldn't have cops, firemen, judges, our military or even our elected officials.

And I am not an anarchist, although from time to time I do find the ideal appealing. I will admit that from time to time the government needs to step in to stop someone from using force. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

SO HOW do you make laws that are neutral and fair, without oppressing business AND without creating a wild west atmosphere where a monopoly can take hold? 

 

You make laws solely on the basis of preventing a person from using dishonesty, fraud or violence to harm another person. The government has the role of arbitrating contracts. It should be the referee and nothing more. As we saw during the robber baron days, the fear of a monopoly is mostly academic. Most historical monopolies only existed because of government law. While Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan managed to attain awesome portions of market share, their businesses ultimately were unable to hold that position. Government is rarely, if ever, necessary to break a monopoly because competition will come when money is being made. The only way to maintain a monopoly is to use government to make it difficult/impossible for someone to start a competing business.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 I am quite sure I could find a list of things you are happy to pay for in taxes because those are things you like. I am no different.

Try me. The only things I approve of federal spending on is those few things listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Sure, there are a handful of things that bug me less because I like them but just because I happen to like something is not a good enough reason to take money from someone else to pay for it. 

 

Now of course any large business is trying to get a monopoly. Why wouldn't they? The goal of a business is to make money, the amount of money you make is related to how large of a market share you have. I don't have a problem with a monopoly that is using market forces. If a company has a monopoly because everyone is choosing to purchase their product over their competitors, great. In our modern world, it is virtually impossible to have a true monopoly without government aid. It is simply too easy to transport goods and to advertise large scale. 

 

In the food truck example, if a food truck parks close to a restaurant and is able to attract a significant enough market share that the restaurant closes down, I don't have a problem. Apparently, the food truck is offering food that customers believe is better, either because it is cheaper, tastier or both. Capitalism is a bitch, and if you can't find a way to compete, your business SHOULD fail. In reality, I have a hard time seeing a food truck actually make a difference to a restaurants revenue- they typically serve very different styles of food and offer a completely different dining experience. If I desired to eat at a restaurant, I am unlikely to settle for a food truck. (Unless said restaurant is fast food like McDonalds) So I suspect that the desire for the distance ban was more emotional than a rational business decision. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

So what makes you think that if someone has tons of money, not just a mom and pop shop, but TONS of money, that they won't use it to hurt someone of another political party, religion, class OR business?

They do, all the time, it is called government. How does someone with tons of money hurt someone without using government?

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

It cannot be no government vs government run economy. Those are absurd extremes,

But without taxes we wouldn't have cops, firemen, judges, our military or even our elected officials.

And I am not an anarchist, although from time to time I do find the ideal appealing. I will admit that from time to time the government needs to step in to stop someone from using force. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

SO HOW do you make laws that are neutral and fair, without oppressing business AND without creating a wild west atmosphere where a monopoly can take hold? 

 

You make laws solely on the basis of preventing a person from using dishonesty, fraud or violence to harm another person. The government has the role of arbitrating contracts. It should be the referee and nothing more. As we saw during the robber baron days, the fear of a monopoly is mostly academic. Most historical monopolies only existed because of government law. While Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan managed to attain awesome portions of market share, their businesses ultimately were unable to hold that position. Government is rarely, if ever, necessary to break a monopoly because competition will come when money is being made. The only way to maintain a monopoly is to use government to make it difficult/impossible for someone to start a competing business.  

I simply think it is childish to think of taxes(meaning all taxes) as stealing. We are social animals and government will happen. HOW a government forms certainly is important, but that is still a separate issue than taxes themselves.

You cannot live in a civil society without a government. You cant have no government.

You can have bad government, such as a theocracy or state dictatorship. AND even in the west you can have too much or too little government. But you cant have NO government.

When you have no government what ends up happening is a power vacuum and that leads to those with the money yielding their power on everyone else. That is how Stalin and Hitler rose. They filled in a void during an economic power vacuum.

How do you suggest, without arbitrators(law makers) we go about making laws? How do you make laws unless you tax people to pay the people to write them and pay police and courts to enforce them?

No government is a bad idea. That is trusting others to do the right thing and humans as much good as they can do, they also try to get away with what they can.

Quote:
It should be the referee and nothing more.

And funny how both sides bitch when the "reff" makes a call they don't like. I bitch too, but unlike you, I don't blame taxes. I blame policies and individuals, not the institution.

I still don't see how that means all taxes are bad. How the fuck are you going to even have "reffs" if you don't collect taxes to pay them? Should our congress, Supreme Court and President work for free? Do you?

 

 

 

"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: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Now of course any

Quote:
Now of course any large business is trying to get a monopoly. Why wouldn't they?

WOW, now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Why shouldn't they?

FOR THE SAME REASON A POLITICAL PARTY OR RELIGION SHOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE A MONOPOLY.

Iran has a monopoly on religion. China has a monopoly on politics. Neither are places you or I would want to live in. You want business to get to the point of shutting all others out. Fine, "Why shouldn't they" maybe we can have the same slave wages as India and China.

Didn't you just condemn the restaurant owners in this example of trying to ban others from competing, meaning street vendors?

Which is it? Are monopolies ok only when it is for big business. If it is, why shouldn't it be for the mom and pop shops?

If you are for social Darwinism, you are out of your mind. Sure, might makes right, but our species also has in it the value of compassion and fairness.

 

 

 

"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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I simply think

Brian37 wrote:

I simply think it is childish to think of taxes(meaning all taxes) as stealing. We are social animals and government will happen. HOW a government forms certainly is important, but that is still a separate issue than taxes themselves.

Not all forms of taxation is theft. For example, I do not consider the gas tax theft- you are essentially paying a use fee in exchange for a direct service of government. I would be ecstatic if the majority of taxes were in the form of use fees where you only paid taxes directly for government services you use. When the majority of people in the country pay no taxes at all, while the minority is footing the vast majority of the bill, that is nothing but theft. Would you come to my house with a gun to mug me for money to pay for your healthcare? I doubt it. Yet you apparently have no problem using the government as a middleman. What is the difference between coming to my house yourself or sending the IRS? At least if you came yourself you are being honest. To me, if it is immoral for an individual to do something, it is immoral for government (people as a group) to do the same thing. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You cannot live in a civil society without a government. You cant have no government.

You can have bad government, such as a theocracy or state dictatorship. AND even in the west you can have too much or too little government. But you cant have NO government.

There have been many instances in history where there was no government. I have been to countries where the government has no control. You can have it, it might not be better. But as I said I am not an anarchist. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

How do you suggest, without arbitrators(law makers) we go about making laws? How do you make laws unless you tax people to pay the people to write them and pay police and courts to enforce them?

Why should we pay the people who write laws? They are all millionaires already. Being a congressman was initially intended to be a part time job. I don't see a reason why it shouldn't still be part time. How many laws do you need? Sooner or later you have to reach a point where you admit there are enough laws and congressmen will still be sitting there passing laws to justify their jobs. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

And funny how both sides bitch when the "reff" makes a call they don't like. I bitch too, but unlike you, I don't blame taxes. I blame policies and individuals, not the institution.

I still don't see how that means all taxes are bad. How the fuck are you going to even have "reffs" if you don't collect taxes to pay them? Should our congress, Supreme Court and President work for free? Do you?

 

Are we talking taxes or regulations? I am not against all taxes. I am for a major overhaul of a tax system I believe is fundamentally unfair. I am ok with a flat tax, consumption tax or a system of use fees (the court system is already partially funded by use fees). My big problem with the current tax system is that you aren't paying your fair share. A few months ago CJ said that you will receive more in government services than you will ever pay for in your lifetime. I sort of went off on her, but she is right for probably 80% of the population. Those of us in the top 20% of income earners pay the tab for the rest of you. I think that is unfair and wrong. 

 

How do you imagine that the policies are ever going to change without changing the direction of the institution? As long as there is such massive incentive for politicians to create more regulations I don't see how laws being passed will be anything other than thousands of pages of handouts and pork. The only solution I can think of is to limit the power of the politicians to create regulations. Do you have another solution? Which politician out there ISN'T going to abuse their power to help their friends? 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Now of

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Now of course any large business is trying to get a monopoly. Why wouldn't they?

WOW, now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Why shouldn't they?

FOR THE SAME REASON A POLITICAL PARTY OR RELIGION SHOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE A MONOPOLY.

Iran has a monopoly on religion. China has a monopoly on politics. Neither are places you or I would want to live in. You want business to get to the point of shutting all others out. Fine, "Why shouldn't they" maybe we can have the same slave wages as India and China.

Didn't you just condemn the restaurant owners in this example of trying to ban others from competing, meaning street vendors?

Which is it? Are monopolies ok only when it is for big business. If it is, why shouldn't it be for the mom and pop shops?

If you are for social Darwinism, you are out of your mind. Sure, might makes right, but our species also has in it the value of compassion and fairness.

If a company gets a monopoly because they are offering a superior product and/or substantially cheaper prices I have no problem. I DO have a problem when they use government force to create their monopoly. If the restaurant runs the street vendor out of business because it persuades customers to come to their establishment instead of the food truck, more power to them. As long as another food vendor is free to set up shop and try to compete with the restaurant any monopoly will most likely be short lived and actually be beneficial to the consumer. The restaurant might run food vendor after food vendor out of business but eventually someone might come up with an idea that appeals to the consumers more. 

 

There is a substantial difference between gaining market share through persuasion and using government force to prevent someone from competing. As far as I'm concerned, companies ought to be able to grab as much market share as they can get peacefully. As soon as they use guns either in the form of thugs like the Mafia or using the government to prevent their competition from attempting to compete you have a problem. 

 

Perhaps the best way to demonstrate the difference is the story of Cornelius Vanderbilt. He got his start working for a ferry company in New York. At the time, New York granted a monopoly to a rival company. Vanderbilt and his employer Gibbons pressed a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court. In the landmark case Gibbons v. Ogden the Supreme Court ruled that New York could not sustain the monopoly. Vanderbilt ran the old company out of business by offering substantially lower fares. Instead of the $4 per passenger, he charged a mere $1. Vanderbilt continued to destroy his competitors and run them out of business by offering better service at lower fares. 

 

After having a near monopoly on the transport business, Vanderbilt turned to ocean shipping and railroads. He used to most ruthless business tactics around. Cornering his competitors stocks, ruining their stock prices by operating his business at a loss then buying out his competition. He crushed Edward K. Collins who received $3 million (a massive sum at the time) plus $385k per year in government subsidies to create a US to Europe shipping line. Time after time, Vanderbilt crushed companies that were favored by the government and in the process, developed several monopolies himself.

 

I have a problem with the monopolies set up by government, I don't with Vanderbilt. If there was another man alive who could operate a railroad or shipping industry more efficiently nothing was stopping them from trying to compete. When the government is involved, they use guns to protect a monopoly. Vanderbilt never used physical force or the threat of physical force to gain market share. He offered better service and lower prices.  

 

A monopoly is fine as long as there is nothing preventing someone with investment to create a company that can attempt to compete. If consumers voluntarily decide to give their business to the monopoly, who cares? 

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I want to know if Bryan

I want to know if Bryan follows his own philosophy and gives every extra penny he earns to the poor and needy, or perhaps the lazy and dependant.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK, I have a dog in this

 

OK, I have a dog in this fight and probably not the one that would be expected.

 

I am specifically licensed to handle food for immunologically compromised people. I have a second dog as well because I used to work for a company that was similar.

 

Item one: My former employer was a corporation with standing at the federal IRS. He paid taxes and rent. Not a valid argument.

 

Item two: Gloves are bad and should never appear in food service. They are a serious violation of best practice.

 

How many times have you ordered lunch and they guy has put gloves on before starting? Did he wash his hands first or did he put the gloves on his potentially filthy hands?

 

I do not say anything about a specific person but I do ask if you would prefer to have your meal made by a hand washer vs a person who has filthy hands but uses gloves? Remember that filthy people do filthy things.

 

You do not know just how bad it gets in food service. How many times have you been in an upscale restaurant and your waiter has the order book in his waist band? There is a reason why aprons have a “waiter's pocket”.

 

I bet most people did not even know the terms “waiter's pocket” but it is real. Four star restaurants often do not use it. There is a presumption of “class” inherent in exposing customers to doody germs.

 

Poop. Fecal mater. Shit. Call it what you want, your waiter is either clean or not clean.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Would

Beyond Saving wrote:

Would you come to my house with a gun to mug me for money to pay for your healthcare? I doubt it. Yet you apparently have no problem using the government as a middleman. What is the difference between coming to my house yourself or sending the IRS?

What is the difference between you claiming the land your house sits on is your 'right' to own and a leftist claiming universal healthcare is their 'right'?

Who gave the original owner of your home the right to claim it as their own? Why wasn't that theft? Who gives people the right to claim healthcare?

“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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What is the

EXC wrote:

What is the difference between you claiming the land your house sits on is your 'right' to own and a leftist claiming universal healthcare is their 'right'?

I paid for it at an agreed upon price. And the leftist (or anyone else) has just as much right to pay for their healthcare using their own money at an agreed upon price.  

 

EXC wrote:

Who gave the original owner of your home the right to claim it as their own? Why wasn't that theft?

At some point a couple hundred years ago someone laid claim to a vacant piece of land. How can it be theft if no one owns it? I suppose it is possible that my particular piece of land was taken after someone killed some Indians, there was a tribe in the area, so it might have been stolen. But that is kind of a moot point now that all the people involved in that particular injustice are long dead. 

 

I have asked you a dozen times, which you have conveniently ignored, without property ownership, how do you determine who can live where? I'll be the first to admit that aspects of property ownership are not perfect, especially in the messy business of being first to lay claim to land. But I have a hard time imagining a society functioning in an acceptable way without it.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I paid

Beyond Saving wrote:

I paid for it at an agreed upon price. And the leftist (or anyone else) has just as much right to pay for their healthcare using their own money at an agreed upon price.  

But no actually did any work to create the land. So how why should there be a price? Isn't selling land getting money for doing nothing, the great evil of leftists? The price of land is just based on it's limited availability.

Beyond Saving wrote:
How can it be theft if no one owns it?

Why shouldn't it belong to everyone? What about slaves that worked the plantations of the south. Why shouldn't their ancestors own the land?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I suppose it is possible that my particular piece of land was taken after someone killed some Indians, there was a tribe in the area, so it might have been stolen. But that is kind of a moot point now that all the people involved in that particular injustice are long dead. 

How convenient for you.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have asked you a dozen times, which you have conveniently ignored, without property ownership, how do you determine who can live where?

It's bad now that we have to live with the orignial 'sin' of people claiming ownership of the land and natural resources. This is the equivilent of slavery with the long term problems it has created. The government can already take land via eminent domain and they force you to pay a tax on it. Let people liver where they want if they can afford to pay for the privledge.

I think you have to draw a distinction between property that is the result of someone's labor and investement and just making money off a limited natural resource.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'll be the first to admit that aspects of property ownership are not perfect, especially in the messy business of being first to lay claim to land. But I have a hard time imagining a society functioning in an acceptable way without it.

Somehow people on the left and right have to desire a society of contracts rather than sacred devine rights. So the people that want to access to land and other natural resources need to pay for this by paying for the healthcare of other people. And the people on the left can't claim welfare rights without giving something back.

I guess you have to first image a society where the concept of 'rights'(to own land, healthcare, breeding, etc...) are no longer God given or sacred but rather something agreed upon by rational people that find 'something for nothing' irrational.

 

“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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But no actually

EXC wrote:

But no actually did any work to create the land. So how why should there be a price? Isn't selling land getting money for doing nothing, the great evil of leftists? The price of land is just based on it's limited availability.

Someone went through an awful lot of effort to improve the land. And I have no problem with someone getting money for doing nothing. I only have a problem with someone taking money with force. If they can find a way to make money without effort, bully for them.  

 

EXC wrote:

It's bad now that we have to live with the orignial 'sin' of people claiming ownership of the land and natural resources. This is the equivilent of slavery with the long term problems it has created. The government can already take land via eminent domain and they force you to pay a tax on it. Let people liver where they want if they can afford to pay for the privledge.

I think you have to draw a distinction between property that is the result of someone's labor and investement and just making money off a limited natural resource.

All material property is simply a natural resource that has been converted into something else. How is "let people live where they want if they can afford to pay for the privilege" different from property ownership? If you don't have private property, who are you paying?

 

EXC wrote:

Somehow people on the left and right have to desire a society of contracts rather than sacred devine rights. So the people that want to access to land and other natural resources need to pay for this by paying for the healthcare of other people. And the people on the left can't claim welfare rights without giving something back.

I guess you have to first image a society where the concept of 'rights'(to own land, healthcare, breeding, etc...) are no longer God given or sacred but rather something agreed upon by rational people that find 'something for nothing' irrational.

Why is healthcare so sacred? What about food? As far as I'm concerned people can decide whether they want to purchase healthcare or if they want they can purchase land. If they provide enough service to society they can afford both. Why would a purely rational society be interested in providing food and healthcare for those who provide nothing in return? Kind of funny you were the one pointing out the uselessness of charities, while here you are advocating giving away free healthcare through some kind of social institution...


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:EXC

Beyond Saving wrote:

EXC wrote:

But no actually did any work to create the land. So how why should there be a price? Isn't selling land getting money for doing nothing, the great evil of leftists? The price of land is just based on it's limited availability.

Someone went through an awful lot of effort to improve the land. And I have no problem with someone getting money for doing nothing. I only have a problem with someone taking money with force. If they can find a way to make money without effort, bully for them.  

 

EXC wrote:

It's bad now that we have to live with the orignial 'sin' of people claiming ownership of the land and natural resources. This is the equivilent of slavery with the long term problems it has created. The government can already take land via eminent domain and they force you to pay a tax on it. Let people liver where they want if they can afford to pay for the privledge.

I think you have to draw a distinction between property that is the result of someone's labor and investement and just making money off a limited natural resource.

All material property is simply a natural resource that has been converted into something else. How is "let people live where they want if they can afford to pay for the privilege" different from property ownership? If you don't have private property, who are you paying?

 

EXC wrote:

Somehow people on the left and right have to desire a society of contracts rather than sacred devine rights. So the people that want to access to land and other natural resources need to pay for this by paying for the healthcare of other people. And the people on the left can't claim welfare rights without giving something back.

I guess you have to first image a society where the concept of 'rights'(to own land, healthcare, breeding, etc...) are no longer God given or sacred but rather something agreed upon by rational people that find 'something for nothing' irrational.

Why is healthcare so sacred? What about food? As far as I'm concerned people can decide whether they want to purchase healthcare or if they want they can purchase land. If they provide enough service to society they can afford both. Why would a purely rational society be interested in providing food and healthcare for those who provide nothing in return? Kind of funny you were the one pointing out the uselessness of charities, while here you are advocating giving away free healthcare through some kind of social institution...

Are you really arguing with people who think land should not be "property"? Ridiculous notion that. "Oh I don't like your house and it's my land too so I think I'll defacate on your porch." Or a more friendly "This land is our land and you have a nice home, I think I'll move in with you or build a house in your front yard."

Fucking outrageously stupid concept not worth arguing. When anarchy comes bringing an end to law and order we might have it untill then it's less than a pipe dream even for the crazy folks who desire such a thing.

As for the health care thing I'm not sure on that, I make about 20k a year and I can't afford to go to the emergency room or really to a doctor yet I am a contributing member of society. I realize there are PLENTY of lazy no count welfare jockeys in society but I shouldn't be penalized for them just as the rich shouldn't be penalized because they make millions.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:As for the

robj101 wrote:

As for the health care thing I'm not sure on that, I make about 20k a year and I can't afford to go to the emergency room or really to a doctor yet I am a contributing member of society. I realize there are PLENTY of lazy no count welfare jockeys in society but I shouldn't be penalized for them just as the rich shouldn't be penalized because they make millions.

 

In what way are you being penalized? If you find yourself needing medical care and you don't have enough money you have put yourself in a position where you are relying on other people to pay for you. That leaves you with two options- you can ask nicely for other peoples charity or you can use the force of government to steal it. I think the former is far more tasteful, I find the latter rather offensive. Especially since hospitals routinely provide basic care to those who can't pay for it and are extremely patient in collecting on the bill. If you can't pay now, you can always set up a payment plan.

 

Granted, your care isn't going to be as high quality as the wealthy person who walks in declares they are paying cash for services but if you routinely tip a benjamin in a restaurant you are going to get better service too, why would you expect medical care to be different? You get what you pay for, and beggars can't be choosers. If you really don't like the idea of being reliant on someone else's charity for your healthcare, I suggest you find a way to make more money....que Brian's "life isn't a script" speech....


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Someone

Beyond Saving wrote:

Someone went through an awful lot of effort to improve the land. And I have no problem with someone getting money for doing nothing. I only have a problem with someone taking money with force. If they can find a way to make money without effort, bully for them.  

Agreed. People should be paid for the value their labor creates, otherwise why work. Wealth without work is one of Ghandi's seven deadly sins. But land ownership, oil rights, water rights, mining rights, etc.. has created a situation were much of the wealth people make is off the shortage of these and not their work. A person can just sit on farmland and as food prices increase, so does the value of the land, no work necessary.

Beyond Saving wrote:

All material property is simply a natural resource that has been converted into something else. How is "let people live where they want if they can afford to pay for the privilege" different from property ownership? If you don't have private property, who are you paying?

 

What about software or composed music, a machine made from recycled material? This is mostly labor that goes into making this. We want a society were we have minimal impact on the environment, right? Imposing a tax for using the environment would be better than taxing labor or investment that minimizes environmental usage. We want a car company to build from recycled materials rather than have to open up new lands to be mined.

I'd like to see all natural resouces be converted to being used in the public interest. Kind of like what was done with the airwaves. If we had done with airwaves like we did with land, we'd have people claiming that they own the right to transmit radio signals.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why is healthcare so sacred? What about food?

To me they are not rights. I don't believe in unconditional rights. I think the government should only provide these to people that agree to be in a job training program and limit their family size. Also, if a person recieves nothing from the government, why should they respect your right to own your house? But you expect the government to enforce your rights.

Beyond Saving wrote:

As far as I'm concerned people can decide whether they want to purchase healthcare or if they want they can purchase land. If they provide enough service to society they can afford both. Why would a purely rational society be interested in providing food and healthcare for those who provide nothing in return?

Agreed. That is why people think I'm a right wing nut, while the conservatives think I'm a communist. I'm just against something for nothing-ism.

Why should the government grant people 'rights' to own land to those that provide nothing in return?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Kind of funny you were the one pointing out the uselessness of charities, while here you are advocating giving away free healthcare through some kind of social institution...

No it would be conditional, not free. That is the problem I have with many charities, if they do provide help they often don't do much to make sure the same people aren't coming back for help again.

“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: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Are you really

robj101 wrote:

Are you really arguing with people who think land should not be "property"? Ridiculous notion that. "Oh I don't like your house and it's my land too so I think I'll defacate on your porch." Or a more friendly "This land is our land and you have a nice home, I think I'll move in with you or build a house in your front yard."

No that would not be in the public interest. The government should decide what is the best use, in most cases it's let people live there if they pay a user fee. But what if there is a land shortage? Do we let a few get rich without work, while others are homeless because of the high cost of land?

I think if the government doesn't do anything for someone, why should they respect any of the laws like land ownership? If you pay for the privilege of living on a piece of land, then someone else can't use this for their benefit, so why can't you pay for his education or his healthcare while he's in job training program? Otherwise, why don't these people just kill you and take your property?

robj101 wrote:

Fucking outrageously stupid concept not worth arguing. When anarchy comes bringing an end to law and order we might have it untill then it's less than a pipe dream even for the crazy folks who desire such a thing.

We already have eminent domain laws, I'm arguing in favor of making all land use in the public interest. What you describe is anarchy. What I'm against is rights like land ownership being granted unconditionally. It's as irrational as healthcare being granted unconditionally.

robj101 wrote:

As for the health care thing I'm not sure on that, I make about 20k a year and I can't afford to go to the emergency room or really to a doctor yet I am a contributing member of society. I realize there are PLENTY of lazy no count welfare jockeys in society but I shouldn't be penalized for them just as the rich shouldn't be penalized because they make millions.

The only way to get to universal health care is to get rid of the concept of unconditional rights for all members of society.

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  In

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

In what way are you being penalized?

Here's a real life example: I got bronchitus really bad about 3 years ago, I had it so bad by the time I finally went to the emergency room I wondered if I would make it (I could barely drive). I sat on a bed for 30 minutes and got two breathing treatments and a prescription for medication (I was going to have to pay for it they just gave me the prescription). I was billed $2600.00 dollars for this and later received a bill in the mail for $40 for an x-ray ... you telling me there is not something wrong?

Since then I have purchased a machine and albuterol which is the same crap they use and I gave less than $100 to OWN enough to give myself 25 breathing treatments.

The system is broken, illegals and welfare cases who do not plan to pay one red cent jack up these costs IMO, something most people don't consider is that we already have free healthcare. You just have to be a total fukin loser with no pride to use/want it.

I think universal healthcare is a fine idea and if people with lots of cash want better care they can see a doctor that doesn't take the govt check. We all know the downside for poor people in the whole deal is going to be subpar care, which is fine you get what you pay for but at least you can get something done if you are ill.

Of all the bullshit the government already pays for and sponsors it seems healthcare for the people would be a common sense thing.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:robj101 wrote:Are

EXC wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Are you really arguing with people who think land should not be "property"? Ridiculous notion that. "Oh I don't like your house and it's my land too so I think I'll defacate on your porch." Or a more friendly "This land is our land and you have a nice home, I think I'll move in with you or build a house in your front yard."

No that would not be in the public interest. The government should decide what is the best use, in most cases it's let people live there if they pay a user fee. But what if there is a land shortage? Do we let a few get rich without work, while others are homeless because of the high cost of land?

I think if the government doesn't do anything for someone, why should they respect any of the laws like land ownership? If you pay for the privilege of living on a piece of land, then someone else can't use this for their benefit, so why can't you pay for his education or his healthcare while he's in job training program? Otherwise, why don't these people just kill you and take your property?

robj101 wrote:

Fucking outrageously stupid concept not worth arguing. When anarchy comes bringing an end to law and order we might have it untill then it's less than a pipe dream even for the crazy folks who desire such a thing.

We already have eminent domain laws, I'm arguing in favor of making all land use in the public interest. What you describe is anarchy. What I'm against is rights like land ownership being granted unconditionally. It's as irrational as healthcare being granted unconditionally.

robj101 wrote:

As for the health care thing I'm not sure on that, I make about 20k a year and I can't afford to go to the emergency room or really to a doctor yet I am a contributing member of society. I realize there are PLENTY of lazy no count welfare jockeys in society but I shouldn't be penalized for them just as the rich shouldn't be penalized because they make millions.

The only way to get to universal health care is to get rid of the concept of unconditional rights for all members of society.

Big brother needs more control, give the government full control of the very land we walk on? It's already taxed and regulated, I watched as about 40 people were forced from their homes here where I live about 8 years ago so the city could build a new mpec center. Sure they got paid for their "land" but most of them didn't really want to leave.

Now grandma has to leave the home she has owned for 30 years and live in an apartment, thanks.

As for universal healthcare they could use the basic "system" that is already in place but the govt cut the hospitals a check for people who can't pay. The cost of an emergency room visit is ridiculous because they get so many people who do not pay so the price goes up for the people who do to make up for it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Beyond Saving

robj101 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

In what way are you being penalized?

Here's a real life example: I got bronchitus really bad about 3 years ago, I had it so bad by the time I finally went to the emergency room I wondered if I would make it (I could barely drive). I sat on a bed for 30 minutes and got two breathing treatments and a prescription for medication (I was going to have to pay for it they just gave me the prescription). I was billed $2600.00 dollars for this and later received a bill in the mail for $40 for an x-ray ... you telling me there is not something wrong?

Since then I have purchased a machine and albuterol which is the same crap they use and I gave less than $100 to OWN enough to give myself 25 breathing treatments.

The system is broken, illegals and welfare cases who do not plan to pay one red cent jack up these costs IMO, something most people don't consider is that we already have free healthcare. You just have to be a total fukin loser with no pride to use/want it.

I think universal healthcare is a fine idea and if people with lots of cash want better care they can see a doctor that doesn't take the govt check. We all know the downside for poor people in the whole deal is going to be subpar care, which is fine you get what you pay for but at least you can get something done if you are ill.

Of all the bullshit the government already pays for and sponsors it seems healthcare for the people would be a common sense thing.

 

So you went to the doctor, got treated and had to pay $2600, whats the problem? If you had gone to an urgent care center instead of the emergency room before you got in really bad shape you probably could have saved yourself a couple thousand- the emergency room charges a lot more and should since you want to discourage its use unless it is absolutely necessary.  

 

About those who don't pay a penny, I agree with you. I have long been a proponent of increasing the ability of hospitals to collect on debts. Right now, they have virtually no power. But I don't see how that problem is at all cured by universal healthcare. At least now, a few poor people have a sense of obligation and pay at least part of what they owe. By definition, under universal healthcare they would pay nothing and wouldn't even have to put up with the annoying collection calls.

 

One of the largest segments of the population that doesn't pay what they owe is old people on medicare. Get the seniors to start paying their own bills and it would provide massive relief to hospitals. Much of what private payers are making up for is all the old folks who don't pay the bill themselves. Many hospitals lose money on treating medicare patients and try to make it up in overcharging private payers. If you want to lower health care costs, make everyone who uses the healthcare system pay for it.  


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:robj101

Beyond Saving wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

In what way are you being penalized?

Here's a real life example: I got bronchitus really bad about 3 years ago, I had it so bad by the time I finally went to the emergency room I wondered if I would make it (I could barely drive). I sat on a bed for 30 minutes and got two breathing treatments and a prescription for medication (I was going to have to pay for it they just gave me the prescription). I was billed $2600.00 dollars for this and later received a bill in the mail for $40 for an x-ray ... you telling me there is not something wrong?

Since then I have purchased a machine and albuterol which is the same crap they use and I gave less than $100 to OWN enough to give myself 25 breathing treatments.

The system is broken, illegals and welfare cases who do not plan to pay one red cent jack up these costs IMO, something most people don't consider is that we already have free healthcare. You just have to be a total fukin loser with no pride to use/want it.

I think universal healthcare is a fine idea and if people with lots of cash want better care they can see a doctor that doesn't take the govt check. We all know the downside for poor people in the whole deal is going to be subpar care, which is fine you get what you pay for but at least you can get something done if you are ill.

Of all the bullshit the government already pays for and sponsors it seems healthcare for the people would be a common sense thing.

 

So you went to the doctor, got treated and had to pay $2600, whats the problem? If you had gone to an urgent care center instead of the emergency room before you got in really bad shape you probably could have saved yourself a couple thousand- the emergency room charges a lot more and should since you want to discourage its use unless it is absolutely necessary.  

 

About those who don't pay a penny, I agree with you. I have long been a proponent of increasing the ability of hospitals to collect on debts. Right now, they have virtually no power. But I don't see how that problem is at all cured by universal healthcare. At least now, a few poor people have a sense of obligation and pay at least part of what they owe. By definition, under universal healthcare they would pay nothing and wouldn't even have to put up with the annoying collection calls.

 

One of the largest segments of the population that doesn't pay what they owe is old people on medicare. Get the seniors to start paying their own bills and it would provide massive relief to hospitals. Much of what private payers are making up for is all the old folks who don't pay the bill themselves. Many hospitals lose money on treating medicare patients and try to make it up in overcharging private payers. If you want to lower health care costs, make everyone who uses the healthcare system pay for it.  

Old folks squeaking by on social security? The statement says I will get a whopping 700$ a month when I get old and retire, if they are old and crippled wtf is someone going to do on $700 a month? Just die? Beg for charity? I pay medicare tax and I'm sure you do too, why don't they deserve it?

I live paycheck to paycheck, despite what you wish or want not everyone in this world is going to make six figures and save a lot of cash for retirement. It's just not realistic and I usually don't have several hundred to throw around. I didn't go to a regular gp because I was broke ass and you pay up front when you see them.

There was a problem with old people lacking healthcare and the ability to keep themselves up a long time ago and social security was conceived. I don't have a huge problem with it. I have a problem with my federal income tax I'm a single male and I seem to be punished for it as I watch as welfare jockeys are rewarded for having children but that's another story.

I have been paying in for medicare every year and I'm certain you have as well. What is this about taking medicare from the elderly? This system for social security and medicare is supposed to be self sustaining, it's not our fault the govt. fucked around and spent the money.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Old folks

robj101 wrote:

Old folks squeaking by on social security? The statement says I will get a whopping 700$ a month when I get old and retire, if they are old and crippled wtf is someone going to do on $700 a month? Just die? Beg for charity? I pay medicare tax and I'm sure you do too, why don't they deserve it?

I live paycheck to paycheck, despite what you wish or want not everyone in this world is going to make six figures and save a lot of cash for retirement. It's just not realistic and I usually don't have several hundred to throw around. I didn't go to a regular gp because I was broke ass and you pay up front when you see them.

There was a problem with old people lacking healthcare and the ability to keep themselves up a long time ago and social security was conceived. I don't have a huge problem with it. I have a problem with my federal income tax I'm a single male and I seem to be punished for it as I watch as welfare jockeys are rewarded for having children but that's another story.

I have been paying in for medicare every year and I'm certain you have as well. What is this about taking medicare from the elderly? This system for social security and medicare is supposed to be self sustaining, it's not our fault the govt. fucked around and spent the money.

 

Both SS and medicare need to be means tested. They ought to be transformed into straight out welfare programs. Right now you get both regardless of your income/net worth and the elderly is the wealthiest segment of our population. Considering that they (the baby boomers) have blown all of the money that was supposed to make SS and medicare solvent, they ought to be the ones who pay the price. For anyone under 40 years old it is extremely ignorant to imagine that either program is going to be around by the time you retire because the money is gone and with inflation, any possible payout you will get will be insignificant.

 

The program needs a radical change and I don't see why people who are worth $1 million plus (about 40%) should be getting anything from the programs. If seniors need money they should be getting reverse mortgages and liquidating their assets. Their income is typically lower than the working class but their net worth is significantly higher. I am willing to concede on the issue for those who truly have nothing (although in a perfect world their kids would take care of them) and provide SS and medicare benefits for them, but that is a much smaller section of the population than currently receives benefits. Seniors are as bad as farmers when it comes to pretending to be poor while sitting on a ton of cash. I have personally witnessed people I know who are worth millions that bitch about their SS checks not being enough. It is sick. 

 

There is also a decent portion of the elderly who might not have any money of their own, but have children and grandchildren who can take care of them. My surviving grandmother for example has nothing other than SS. Both my parents and myself are more than capable of supporting her and we should before leaving the responsibility to society at large. I don't know how large that portion of the population, but if you could figure out a way to exclude them from government welfare as well you could substantially reduce the costs to government. I think the only way to do that is to make government welfare extremely uncomfortable so that it is the option of last resort. If you own a house, you have no business mooching off the government until you have liquidated it. We could probably use a system similar to what we use for long term care benefits. After you have used all of your personal assets, if you still need assistance, fine- we are not going to make you to die in the streets. But if you are living the end of your life on the government dime and still leaving hundreds of thousands to your kids when you die, there is something wrong. 

 

I think that by radically reforming the payouts you can easily allow people like yourself to keep more of what you are currently paying in and invest it. If you are smart, you will invest in something that will provide cash flow as opposed to the scam that is 401ks but that is another thread. You said you make around 20k so you are paying around $3000 per year for SS and medicare (you only see half that tax but the other half is a direct cost to your employer, we don't care if the money goes to you or the government we factor the cost into our budget either way). I dare say you could do something significant with $3000 per year, I don't know how old you are but $3000/year is enough to buy a decent health insurance policy for anyone single in their 20s or 30s. 

 

And as a recently single male I agree the tax code is bullshit. My divorce was extremely expensive because it moved me up a whole tax bracket. But, married people with kids vote more and politicians use the tax code to buy votes. 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:robj101

Beyond Saving wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Old folks squeaking by on social security? The statement says I will get a whopping 700$ a month when I get old and retire, if they are old and crippled wtf is someone going to do on $700 a month? Just die? Beg for charity? I pay medicare tax and I'm sure you do too, why don't they deserve it?

I live paycheck to paycheck, despite what you wish or want not everyone in this world is going to make six figures and save a lot of cash for retirement. It's just not realistic and I usually don't have several hundred to throw around. I didn't go to a regular gp because I was broke ass and you pay up front when you see them.

There was a problem with old people lacking healthcare and the ability to keep themselves up a long time ago and social security was conceived. I don't have a huge problem with it. I have a problem with my federal income tax I'm a single male and I seem to be punished for it as I watch as welfare jockeys are rewarded for having children but that's another story.

I have been paying in for medicare every year and I'm certain you have as well. What is this about taking medicare from the elderly? This system for social security and medicare is supposed to be self sustaining, it's not our fault the govt. fucked around and spent the money.

 

Both SS and medicare need to be means tested. They ought to be transformed into straight out welfare programs. Right now you get both regardless of your income/net worth and the elderly is the wealthiest segment of our population. Considering that they (the baby boomers) have blown all of the money that was supposed to make SS and medicare solvent, they ought to be the ones who pay the price. For anyone under 40 years old it is extremely ignorant to imagine that either program is going to be around by the time you retire because the money is gone and with inflation, any possible payout you will get will be insignificant.

 

The program needs a radical change and I don't see why people who are worth $1 million plus (about 40%) should be getting anything from the programs. If seniors need money they should be getting reverse mortgages and liquidating their assets. Their income is typically lower than the working class but their net worth is significantly higher. I am willing to concede on the issue for those who truly have nothing (although in a perfect world their kids would take care of them) and provide SS and medicare benefits for them, but that is a much smaller section of the population than currently receives benefits. Seniors are as bad as farmers when it comes to pretending to be poor while sitting on a ton of cash. I have personally witnessed people I know who are worth millions that bitch about their SS checks not being enough. It is sick. 

 

There is also a decent portion of the elderly who might not have any money of their own, but have children and grandchildren who can take care of them. My surviving grandmother for example has nothing other than SS. Both my parents and myself are more than capable of supporting her and we should before leaving the responsibility to society at large. I don't know how large that portion of the population, but if you could figure out a way to exclude them from government welfare as well you could substantially reduce the costs to government. I think the only way to do that is to make government welfare extremely uncomfortable so that it is the option of last resort. If you own a house, you have no business mooching off the government until you have liquidated it. We could probably use a system similar to what we use for long term care benefits. After you have used all of your personal assets, if you still need assistance, fine- we are not going to make you to die in the streets. But if you are living the end of your life on the government dime and still leaving hundreds of thousands to your kids when you die, there is something wrong. 

 

I think that by radically reforming the payouts you can easily allow people like yourself to keep more of what you are currently paying in and invest it. If you are smart, you will invest in something that will provide cash flow as opposed to the scam that is 401ks but that is another thread. You said you make around 20k so you are paying around $3000 per year for SS and medicare (you only see half that tax but the other half is a direct cost to your employer, we don't care if the money goes to you or the government we factor the cost into our budget either way). I dare say you could do something significant with $3000 per year, I don't know how old you are but $3000/year is enough to buy a decent health insurance policy for anyone single in their 20s or 30s. 

 

And as a recently single male I agree the tax code is bullshit. My divorce was extremely expensive because it moved me up a whole tax bracket. But, married people with kids vote more and politicians use the tax code to buy votes. 

It's true some elderly folks have money, but if they paid in then they are due to receive and not all do have a huge nest egg, they have been paying in ss and are expecting to receive ..yep, SS.

Do you really think the kids and grandkids will take care of their elders? lol they don't even want to take care of their own kids these days. Have you noticed how many grandparents are raising their grandchildren these days? It's a wacky world and that's why SS was started, people were not taking care of the elderly then and they wont now either.

These top two points here sound nice on paper but I think you are speaking of a minority as far as old people with loads of cash and kids that care enough about their parents and do well enough to take care of them.

 

They are not going to cut off SS and pay out every indiviual that has paid in and then allow them to "invest" it. Not going to happen.

I agree with some of your other points.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond, once again you miss

Beyond, once again you miss my point even with business WHY monopolies are bad.

Having the ability to crush your competition does not equal a "superior" product. AND AGAIN, this isn't just about business monopolies.

By your reasoning The Saudi Royal family puts out a good "product"(their theocracy) because of their ability to crush their competition.

Having the ability to beat the shit out of someone, be it politically, religiously, or business, only means you have the ability to beat your competitor, it does not mean the "product" you sell is good for society.

You are mistaking "might makes right" with quality or morality, and they are not the same.

Having the power to crush your competition only means you have the power to crush your competition.

You can successfully market shit as ice cream, that doesn't make shit ice cream.

You have to keep a check on all power in all sectors of society, not just government or religion. ANYTHING left to it's own devices can and will go off the rails. To say that private business is incapable of being abusive like a government or a religion or political party, is absurd.

Once again, advocating checks on power in no way advocates a Big Brother or Stalin like government. The First Amendment is an anti-trust law, an anti-monopoly law to insure no aspect of society is taken over by a small group of people, FOR ANY REASON, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC. It is a mistake to say that the First Amendment should not apply to the private sector as well.

And to Rob, you said you only make 20k and cant afford the emergency room. Increasingly more and more people will be in your boat. But you are out of your mind thinking that addressing the cost of living gap through government is punishing the rich.

NO ONE WANTS TO PUNISH ANYONE,

You however are a fool at your pay thinking that big business who create these conflated health care costs give one ratts ass about you. I don't think people like you will wake up until the EMTs start asking for your credit report before they render treatment. "Slide your card, put in your pin number, or die".

I will give Republicans credit for having the ability to get society to vote against their own self interest.

No one should begrudge someone for making it. I certainly dont, despite the childish fear mongering falsely aimed at me.

It is a matter of if you want less regulation that also comes with responsibility, and I do not see the top being responsible. I do see the wage gap exploding, health care costs exploding and the top not doing a damned thing about it other that crying "you want to rob me" like fucking crybabies.

You cannot bitch about the middle and poor turning to government when you are not doing anything yourself to  address the pay/cost of living gap. Money is not the only class in this country.

When we have bankers and car company and health insurance CEOs making out like bandits and record profits with little or no impact to improve the lives of society, who set up a system where they win even when they fuck up, and dump their loses on the tax payers is not my idea of a healthy free market.

Rob, for someone who only makes 20k you are a fool thinking the top economic right policies will help you. You are foolishly allowing them to sell you a utopia while they keep raping the public with their fuck ups demanding we pay for their fuck ups.

I have seen far too many bubbles over the past 30 years and seen far too much business  go overseas evaporate to think any of this is beneficial long term to our society as a whole.

Monopolies are the problem. Big money buying lawmakers is the problem, not an individuals right to be a business owner. I don't think there is a "conspiracy" but there is a bad climate controlled by fear that prevents people from transcending class phobia.

I have no qualms at all with people wanting more than me. I have every reason to fear anything, government, religion, or business that says "I can do what I want and fuck you if you don't like it".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond, once

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond, once again you miss my point even with business WHY monopolies are bad.

Having the ability to crush your competition does not equal a "superior" product. AND AGAIN, this isn't just about business monopolies.

By your reasoning The Saudi Royal family puts out a good "product"(their theocracy) because of their ability to crush their competition.

Having the ability to beat the shit out of someone, be it politically, religiously, or business, only means you have the ability to beat your competitor, it does not mean the "product" you sell is good for society.

You are mistaking "might makes right" with quality or morality, and they are not the same.

Having the power to crush your competition only means you have the power to crush your competition.

You can successfully market shit as ice cream, that doesn't make shit ice cream.

 

 

No..... I am drawing a distinction between economic power and persuasion (marketing) compared to political power and physical force. You fail to draw that distinction. Clearly, the Saudi Royal family uses coercion and physical force, that is wrong. If customers are VOLUNTARILY choosing to purchase from one company, that is not a problem imo.

 

Only government has a monopoly on force. If you can't see the difference between using physical force and using advertising then you are hopeless. Bill Gates will never show up at your door with a gun and demand that you buy Windows or go to jail. A monopoly is only bad when it is sustained through physical force, if it is sustained through consumer choice there is no problem.  

 

And I will pay you $1 million if you can successfully market shit as ice cream. I am willing to bet your customer base wouldn't last long.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond, once again you miss my point even with business WHY monopolies are bad.

Having the ability to crush your competition does not equal a "superior" product. AND AGAIN, this isn't just about business monopolies.

By your reasoning The Saudi Royal family puts out a good "product"(their theocracy) because of their ability to crush their competition.

Having the ability to beat the shit out of someone, be it politically, religiously, or business, only means you have the ability to beat your competitor, it does not mean the "product" you sell is good for society.

You are mistaking "might makes right" with quality or morality, and they are not the same.

Having the power to crush your competition only means you have the power to crush your competition.

You can successfully market shit as ice cream, that doesn't make shit ice cream.

 

 

 

No..... I am drawing a distinction between economic power and persuasion (marketing) compared to political power and physical force. You fail to draw that distinction. Clearly, the Saudi Royal family uses coercion and physical force, that is wrong. If customers are VOLUNTARILY choosing to purchase from one company, that is not a problem imo.

 

Only government has a monopoly on force. If you can't see the difference between using physical force and using advertising then you are hopeless. Bill Gates will never show up at your door with a gun and demand that you buy Windows or go to jail. A monopoly is only bad when it is sustained through physical force, if it is sustained through consumer choice there is no problem.  

 

And I will pay you $1 million if you can successfully market shit as ice cream. I am willing to bet your customer base wouldn't last long.

 

Explain Microsoft and Windows, that is shit sold as ice cream. My name is spelled....and my address is.....

If the market always weeded out bad products Bill Gates should not be a billionaire. Microsoft products are the Chinese cheap crap of software with about as much quality as plastic toy made in China by slave labor.

You still want to pretend that in the private sector that money does not equal power when clearly it does. EVEN without weapons or force you can create conditions on paper(laws) that favor protecting certain groups at the expense of others, WHICH YOU ADMITTED TO.

I think the reality is that you are merely for things you like, not competition against things you like and cry sour grapes when your ideas get out competed.

Again, things are not black and white and you are a fool if you think the private sector is immune from being as abusive as a government or religion. I think the banking industry and car companies over the past decade have proven that abuse can exist in the private sector. Otherwise the tax payers wouldn't be bailing them out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 What it comes down to:

 What it comes down to: capitalism started out great and the people have let it get out of hand. The baby crocodile was cute but these things will grow as large as their environment will allow and it's all grown up now and it's ..well it's a fuckin' crocodile! 

 The government is supposed to regulate it's environment and the people are supposed to regulate the government. The people are stupid and/or don't care enough to change it and opt to let the politicians play favorites with big business. IMO

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: What it

robj101 wrote:

 What it comes down to: capitalism started out great and the people have let it get out of hand. The baby crocodile was cute but these things will grow as large as their environment will allow and it's all grown up now and it's ..well it's a fuckin' crocodile! 

 The government is supposed to regulate it's environment and the people are supposed to regulate the government. The people are stupid and/or don't care enough to change it and opt to let the politicians play favorites with big business. IMO

You are partially right.

The crock got big, but you want to blame those without the money to influence politics which is stupid.

You are blaming the victim. "Well if she didn't want to get rapped she shouldn't have worn that dress". If big business isn't abusive then why the fuck are the tax payers bailing them out?

So now that people are trying to regulate the government like you say they should you are hypocritically bitching. Astounding.

I think the reality is that while you claim to want competition you at the same time fear it when it doesn't end up siding with your ideals.

Here is what you are doing, "If I cant have it my way, then it is automatically wrong"

NOTHING in life, private or public should be left to it's own devices as a default position. Business should not have a blank check any more than a government or religion should.

WHICH IS WHY I KEEP SAYING you can't have an either/or proposition on economic issues and why you need anti-monopoly laws enforced, not just on religion or government.

You want to own a business, great, fine, I am all for it. But it cannot nor should come at the cost of creating bubbles are exploding pay gaps just to benefit the few.

The crock got big because "might makes right" which is not moral, just manipulative.

 

"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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: The crock

Brian37 wrote:

 

The crock got big, but you want to blame those without the money to influence politics which is stupid.

 

 

I blame those who have let it get that way and I'm one of them but you are talking as if there were big monopolies and huge corporations when this country started. The people elect the politicians, it's time for a purge IMO.

You don't need money to vote. You don't need money to carry around a sign. You don't need money to speak out. 

Lifelong politicians are a huge part of the problem, it's a career, a job and when you have a career and a job it's just that. Public servants are a thing of the past. Working for your country because you care is a thing of the past. It's all about how fat you can get your wallet and what does it matter if it is at the expense of the people, they were stupid enough to give you the power by electing your ass.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 There are people who are

 There are people who are go getters and there are people who are lazy or stupid. What it seems you suggest is just take away power from the go getters and make them come down to the level of the lazy and stupid people. Makes no sense and it's not how this country took off and did so well..untill fairly recently anyway.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You guys still don't get

You guys still don't get it.

"Mine" by itself is not a bad thing. I have things that are "mine". There is not a thing wrong with wanting things, or more things. BY ITSELF.

The problem is climate and fear and lack of introspection as to regards of impact.

You cannot sustain long term an economy that doesn't care about an exploding lopsidedness. You are falsely assuming again, that "capitalism" is a form of government, it is not.

China is using our money making model every effectively in competing to sell products and beating the shit out of us doing so. But they are lopsided economically and politically as far as their citizens ability to have a voice. They are authoritarian capitalists who are highly effective in selling sub standard crap made by slave labor.

You falsely assume that abuse cannot exist in our market. ABUSE can exist anywhere in any government private or public, and that is the mistake you are making.

China is very abusive to their labor and I don't want to see our country mimic their economy just to compete.

Stop blaming the poor and middle class, address the cost of living issues and bring quality pay back to the workers here and you will get government off your back.

Otherwise don't bitch when the middle and poor classes turn to government for help. I think for industries who we bailed out to bitch about government intervention have no fucking right to bitch.

Maybe if they were concerned about more than their own profit margins none of this shit would have happened in the first place.

You cannot have it both ways. You cant say "let them eat cake" and then expect the middle class and poor to suck it up and then ask for help when you fuck up.

INTROSPECTION is the problem, not someone's personal desires.

 

 

 

 

"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: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: There are

robj101 wrote:

 There are people who are go getters and there are people who are lazy or stupid. What it seems you suggest is just take away power from the go getters and make them come down to the level of the lazy and stupid people. Makes no sense and it's not how this country took off and did so well..untill fairly recently anyway.

Stop it. This is bullshit.

No one wants to stop the "go getters".

You are confusing issues.

1. People have the right to go after what they want in life. DUH, thanks for the update.

2. HOW you go about doing it is just as important.

Life is not a script and people have different desires and being rich is not the only morality in life.

Here is your false claim, "You think everyone should be poor to prove themselves"

NO,

I am saying that since life is a range and we are all individuals placing blame on the middle and poor classes is fucking absurd.

The right wing lie that people without money are lazy and that poverty should be treated like a crime, is being exposed.

That is what I am addressing, not your fucking right to make a living.

Me, "The cost of living is getting out of hand"

You, "You hate rich people"

BULLSHIT, please stop making a fool of yourself.

John Stewart and Stephen Cobert are rich and make money in the same fucking market you do. What is your excuse now? How is it I can agree with them while they are rich, but not you?

Our disagreement isn't about business ownership. Our disagreement is about HOW people go about doing it, not their right to do it.

 

"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: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I want to know

robj101 wrote:

I want to know if Bryan follows his own philosophy and gives every extra penny he earns to the poor and needy, or perhaps the lazy and dependant.

Don't be stupid. You keep pounding on a dead issue and confusing subjects.

Of course I don't. Everyone cares about themselves to some degree, if we didn't our we'd all commit suicide.

We are on our way to looking like India and China and even Tijuana.

You are out of your mind if you think pointing that out means I want to rid our country of a free market.

I do not think that competition should involve looking like those countries to beat them.

You want a "free for all" market. Keep it up, I don't think you'd like the results in reality.

AGAIN you keep confusing cost of living issues as some sort of demand that we all be poor.

STOP IT, that is a bullshit argument.

 

 

"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: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond, I don't know if you

Beyond, I don't know if you have seen the American Express "Gold Card" commercial with the restaurant owner in it. I am not sure how much of it is true, and how much of it is marketing to get you to get a gold card. BUT, I do like the sentiment of it.

In it the owner talks about HIS BUS BOYS being with him for 30 years. If true, that means he is making money AND keeping even his lowest paid on a livable level.

Mind you, it is a mere commercial, but if business took on his attitude, IF TRUE, I think you'd see things improve long term.

IF TRUE, this is an example of a business model that I can respect. A bus boy staying at their job and being loyal to the owner.

I am merely trying to show you that business by itself is not a bad thing, just that anything can be exploited and the private sector is not immune to it like you would like to think.

AGAIN, this is not some stupid demand that everyone remain bus boys. If this business owner didn't do what he did, he wouldn't have bus boys to keep happy. So again, pointing out that life is a range and not an absolute is no more a call for you to be like me. I just ask that you don't project yourself on others.

The owner is needed, but so are the bus boys and IF TRUE, he has much better morals as a business owner than the banks and car companies and insurance companies who have dumped their fuck ups on us.

NOTHING is black and white and neither being a business owner or bus boy is a crime.

All I have ever tried to explain is that our cost of living and growing pay gap is killing us and you keep asking for evidence of this and the past 30 years proves it. Our policies will make it easier to treat humans like objects, not humans.

As long as you treat humans like objects or mere numbers on a page as less important than the product you sell,  you will get to a point of exploitation, the same exploitation that goes on in China and India.

Pointing that out does not equate to me demanding the end of a free market.

My question to you, is if this guy can do it, why cant the rest of the free market?

 

 

 

 

 

"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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

 There are people who are go getters and there are people who are lazy or stupid. What it seems you suggest is just take away power from the go getters and make them come down to the level of the lazy and stupid people. Makes no sense and it's not how this country took off and did so well..untill fairly recently anyway.

Stop it. This is bullshit.

No one wants to stop the "go getters".

You are confusing issues.

1. People have the right to go after what they want in life. DUH, thanks for the update.

2. HOW you go about doing it is just as important.

Life is not a script and people have different desires and being rich is not the only morality in life.

Here is your false claim, "You think everyone should be poor to prove themselves"

NO,

I am saying that since life is a range and we are all individuals placing blame on the middle and poor classes is fucking absurd.

The right wing lie that people without money are lazy and that poverty should be treated like a crime, is being exposed.

That is what I am addressing, not your fucking right to make a living.

Me, "The cost of living is getting out of hand"

You, "You hate rich people"

BULLSHIT, please stop making a fool of yourself.

John Stewart and Stephen Cobert are rich and make money in the same fucking market you do. What is your excuse now? How is it I can agree with them while they are rich, but not you?

Our disagreement isn't about business ownership. Our disagreement is about HOW people go about doing it, not their right to do it.

 

You seem to either be very confused or you have changed your mind very recently about something.

Give us a short and to the point breakdown of what you think about big business welfare the government and the general state of things, refresh our memory on this. I could do this in a few sentences just try to keep it brief and to the point please. My mind wanders and shrill little noises and bright objects distract me.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Explain

Brian37 wrote:

Explain Microsoft and Windows, that is shit sold as ice cream. My name is spelled....and my address is.....

If the market always weeded out bad products Bill Gates should not be a billionaire. Microsoft products are the Chinese cheap crap of software with about as much quality as plastic toy made in China by slave labor.

You still want to pretend that in the private sector that money does not equal power when clearly it does. EVEN without weapons or force you can create conditions on paper(laws) that favor protecting certain groups at the expense of others, WHICH YOU ADMITTED TO.

I think the reality is that you are merely for things you like, not competition against things you like and cry sour grapes when your ideas get out competed.

Again, things are not black and white and you are a fool if you think the private sector is immune from being as abusive as a government or religion. I think the banking industry and car companies over the past decade have proven that abuse can exist in the private sector. Otherwise the tax payers wouldn't be bailing them out.

 

Obviously a lot of people prefer Windows. There are other options out there that people can choose but the vast majority of people choose to purchase Microsoft products. No doubt Bill Gates genius at marketing has played a key role. Also the fact that he LED the personal computer movement when Steve Jobs was too obsessed with perfecting the product. So many people learned how to use computers on Windows and people like things they are comfortable with. Bill Gates never used a gun to force anyone to purchase his products. You go to the store and you decide, Windows PC or Mac or other. 

 

Paper laws ARE using force. By definition a law is backed up by government force and exactly what I am arguing against. And if you look at the abuses of the banks and car companies you will find that they are abuses BECAUSE they used laws. The laws are the instrument of the abuse, which is why I am against them. A company that does not use laws or regulations to compete, but instead uses marketing and ideas is not abusive. ANY company that uses laws and regulations to compete is reprehensible. Unfortunately, the majority of companies in modern times use laws and regulations to compete and that is precisely the culture I wish to change by removing the governments power to create laws or regulations.  

 

The tax payer bailouts are the ultimate example of laws being abused. It is absolutely outrageous that any company is bailed out. Every single one of those mother fuckers should have gone broke. That is how capitalism works, failed companies go bankrupt and are bought out by more efficient companies. We threw capitalism out the window in favor of cronyism where the government is deciding which companies succeed and which fail. It is despicable and I try my best not to purchase any products from any company that accepted government bailout money. Unfortunately, the list of companies that accept money is much longer than companies that have not. We need to stop all government/corporation incest right now, the only way to do that is to remove the governments power to be actively involved in business. 

 

I don't understand how you conclude that we need more regulation while admitting that regulations are written by the most corrupt of businesses. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond, I

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond, I don't know if you have seen the American Express "Gold Card" commercial with the restaurant owner in it. I am not sure how much of it is true, and how much of it is marketing to get you to get a gold card. BUT, I do like the sentiment of it.

In it the owner talks about HIS BUS BOYS being with him for 30 years. If true, that means he is making money AND keeping even his lowest paid on a livable level.

Mind you, it is a mere commercial, but if business took on his attitude, IF TRUE, I think you'd see things improve long term.

IF TRUE, this is an example of a business model that I can respect. A bus boy staying at their job and being loyal to the owner.

Personally, I would fire anyone who told me they wanted to be a bus boy for 30 years. I want employees who are interested in rising in the company and improving the business so I don't have to work forever. Hell, I don't even want anyone working for me that imagines themselves working for me in 30 years. I would rather have someone who plans on leaving my company to start their own. Give me an employee who says "Beyond, in 30 years I will run you out of business because I'm starting my own company that will be better than yours". A person with that attitude will be far more productive. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. Does that make me immoral?

 

Brian37 wrote:

All I have ever tried to explain is that our cost of living and growing pay gap is killing us and you keep asking for evidence of this and the past 30 years proves it. Our policies will make it easier to treat humans like objects, not humans.

As long as you treat humans like objects or mere numbers on a page as less important than the product you sell,  you will get to a point of exploitation, the same exploitation that goes on in China and India.

Pointing that out does not equate to me demanding the end of a free market.

If people aren't happy with what they are being paid, why don't they demand more money? One of the things that surprises me most is how rarely people ask for raises. If a worker does not believe they are worth more money, why should I believe they are worth more? If you are working a job and believe you are worth more money, ask for a raise, if refused look for work elsewhere. And again I am left asking how much I should be paying? A few people have thrown out suggestions, most of which were down around what the minimum wage is which you can't find a person to work for in Ohio. What is the magical living wage I should be paying?

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond, I don't know if you have seen the American Express "Gold Card" commercial with the restaurant owner in it. I am not sure how much of it is true, and how much of it is marketing to get you to get a gold card. BUT, I do like the sentiment of it.

In it the owner talks about HIS BUS BOYS being with him for 30 years. If true, that means he is making money AND keeping even his lowest paid on a livable level.

Mind you, it is a mere commercial, but if business took on his attitude, IF TRUE, I think you'd see things improve long term.

IF TRUE, this is an example of a business model that I can respect. A bus boy staying at their job and being loyal to the owner.

Personally, I would fire anyone who told me they wanted to be a bus boy for 30 years. I want employees who are interested in rising in the company and improving the business so I don't have to work forever. Hell, I don't even want anyone working for me that imagines themselves working for me in 30 years. I would rather have someone who plans on leaving my company to start their own. Give me an employee who says "Beyond, in 30 years I will run you out of business because I'm starting my own company that will be better than yours". A person with that attitude will be far more productive. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. Does that make me immoral?

 

Brian37 wrote:

All I have ever tried to explain is that our cost of living and growing pay gap is killing us and you keep asking for evidence of this and the past 30 years proves it. Our policies will make it easier to treat humans like objects, not humans.

As long as you treat humans like objects or mere numbers on a page as less important than the product you sell,  you will get to a point of exploitation, the same exploitation that goes on in China and India.

Pointing that out does not equate to me demanding the end of a free market.

If people aren't happy with what they are being paid, why don't they demand more money? One of the things that surprises me most is how rarely people ask for raises. If a worker does not believe they are worth more money, why should I believe they are worth more? If you are working a job and believe you are worth more money, ask for a raise, if refused look for work elsewhere. And again I am left asking how much I should be paying? A few people have thrown out suggestions, most of which were down around what the minimum wage is which you can't find a person to work for in Ohio. What is the magical living wage I should be paying?

 

 

 

Beyond, what may frustrate you about those in "the other camp" is that people do things for different reasons. Something sometimes I think you fail to realize.

One teacher can go after a career, for example, because they want to be in charge of something. I've known plenty of teachers who don't do it for the love of teaching, but simply for the power and control, even if they mask it as something noble. At the same time I've seen plenty of teachers who care more about the impact they make than the pay they get.

You cant always quantify success in terms of numbers, nor should you.

What bugs me most about you is that I feel that you cannot square the fact that I am happy for you, even when you have more than I do.

BUT as far as I am concerned, I don't ask for raises because, right now, because I have what I need. But I also do not like raises because it puts me in the position of being owned. I have gotten TWO raises I did not ask for and I have seen in prior jobs, ESPEICALLY with big business, what happens to those who get moved up.

I am not into committing suicide. The giant pizza franchise I  worked at was famous for chewing up and spitting out store managers and mid level management. Ironically the ones who lasted the longest were the ones at the bottom.

If I ever feel like I need one, I will ask for one. But I don't like the attitude that "look what I did for you" as some sort of obligation to become more of a slave. I could say the same to them.

I don't do my current job for the pay or the glamor at all. I love my job because RIGHT NOW, it provides me with the stability and work environment that keeps me sane. No amount of money will make me keep a job I hate.

How can you explain a comedian or actor going through life never reaching fame, but still do it? How can you explain a musician who goes through life playing nothing but bars and street corners?

You do it because you like to do it and sometimes doing it wont equate to financial security.

"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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond, what

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond, what may frustrate you about those in "the other camp" is that people do things for different reasons. Something sometimes I think you fail to realize.

One teacher can go after a career, for example, because they want to be in charge of something. I've known plenty of teachers who don't do it for the love of teaching, but simply for the power and control, even if they mask it as something noble. At the same time I've seen plenty of teachers who care more about the impact they make than the pay they get.

You cant always quantify success in terms of numbers, nor should you.

What bugs me most about you is that I feel that you cannot square the fact that I am happy for you, even when you have more than I do.

BUT as far as I am concerned, I don't ask for raises because, right now, because I have what I need. But I also do not like raises because it puts me in the position of being owned. I have gotten TWO raises I did not ask for and I have seen in prior jobs, ESPEICALLY with big business, what happens to those who get moved up.

I am not into committing suicide. The giant pizza franchise I  worked at was famous for chewing up and spitting out store managers and mid level management. Ironically the ones who lasted the longest were the ones at the bottom.

If I ever feel like I need one, I will ask for one. But I don't like the attitude that "look what I did for you" as some sort of obligation to become more of a slave. I could say the same to them.

I don't do my current job for the pay or the glamor at all. I love my job because RIGHT NOW, it provides me with the stability and work environment that keeps me sane. No amount of money will make me keep a job I hate.

How can you explain a comedian or actor going through life never reaching fame, but still do it? How can you explain a musician who goes through life playing nothing but bars and street corners?

You do it because you like to do it and sometimes doing it wont equate to financial security.

 

And how does that conflict with anything I said? I don't really care why people do what they do. I don't care how much they make or don't make. If you're happy, good for you. Then why all the whining about us evil capitalists not paying a high enough wage? Or offering enough benefits? As far as I know, everyone who works for me is apparently satisfied with their wages and I presume that if at any time they thought I wasn't paying enough they would either quit or ask their supervisor for a raise, if they do neither, how am I supposed to know what they are thinking? 

 

Your take on raises is rather humorous to me. I generally offer automatic raises to people (usually 4-5%) just to keep ahead of inflation and give bonuses out when things are particularly profitable. I wonder if anyone thinks I am putting them in a position of being "owned"? Maybe I should keep the money for myself. 

 

What I don't get about you is your equivocation of wage labor and slavery. In the US all work is "at will" (except the military) which means that you can quit any time you feel like with no negative consequences other than perhaps losing a reference. 

 

And now I am REALLY confused. Apparently, you want businesses to pay higher wages, but you also dislike getting unsolicited raises? I guess we are damned if we do and damned if we don't....


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond, what may frustrate you about those in "the other camp" is that people do things for different reasons. Something sometimes I think you fail to realize.

One teacher can go after a career, for example, because they want to be in charge of something. I've known plenty of teachers who don't do it for the love of teaching, but simply for the power and control, even if they mask it as something noble. At the same time I've seen plenty of teachers who care more about the impact they make than the pay they get.

You cant always quantify success in terms of numbers, nor should you.

What bugs me most about you is that I feel that you cannot square the fact that I am happy for you, even when you have more than I do.

BUT as far as I am concerned, I don't ask for raises because, right now, because I have what I need. But I also do not like raises because it puts me in the position of being owned. I have gotten TWO raises I did not ask for and I have seen in prior jobs, ESPEICALLY with big business, what happens to those who get moved up.

I am not into committing suicide. The giant pizza franchise I  worked at was famous for chewing up and spitting out store managers and mid level management. Ironically the ones who lasted the longest were the ones at the bottom.

If I ever feel like I need one, I will ask for one. But I don't like the attitude that "look what I did for you" as some sort of obligation to become more of a slave. I could say the same to them.

I don't do my current job for the pay or the glamor at all. I love my job because RIGHT NOW, it provides me with the stability and work environment that keeps me sane. No amount of money will make me keep a job I hate.

How can you explain a comedian or actor going through life never reaching fame, but still do it? How can you explain a musician who goes through life playing nothing but bars and street corners?

You do it because you like to do it and sometimes doing it wont equate to financial security.

 

And how does that conflict with anything I said? I don't really care why people do what they do. I don't care how much they make or don't make. If you're happy, good for you. Then why all the whining about us evil capitalists not paying a high enough wage? Or offering enough benefits? As far as I know, everyone who works for me is apparently satisfied with their wages and I presume that if at any time they thought I wasn't paying enough they would either quit or ask their supervisor for a raise, if they do neither, how am I supposed to know what they are thinking? 

 

Your take on raises is rather humorous to me. I generally offer automatic raises to people (usually 4-5%) just to keep ahead of inflation and give bonuses out when things are particularly profitable. I wonder if anyone thinks I am putting them in a position of being "owned"? Maybe I should keep the money for myself. 

 

What I don't get about you is your equivocation of wage labor and slavery. In the US all work is "at will" (except the military) which means that you can quit any time you feel like with no negative consequences other than perhaps losing a reference. 

 

And now I am REALLY confused. Apparently, you want businesses to pay higher wages, but you also dislike getting unsolicited raises? I guess we are damned if we do and damned if we don't....

Because you keep conflating capitalism to a from of government IT IS NOT! China would not have power if it didn't make money.

If you and I agree that you do things because you want to, our only difference is between expectation.

You would say "You don't have to take this job" AND BY ITSELF. I would agree.

But you don't want to take into account the amount of manipulation that those with money have.

I want business to pay higher wages, DUH, AND THANKS FOR THE UPDATE.

But the reason they don't isn't because they cant afford it, it is because they don't want to.

You think just because I agree with someone's right to make money, that rules don't apply because everyone wants money.

I don't want to starve any more than you do. And I dont, despite what you may think, want you to be poor> I simply think that you falsely think that everyone but the rich are the bad guy.

There is more to life than simply paying bills.

"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: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond, what may frustrate you about those in "the other camp" is that people do things for different reasons. Something sometimes I think you fail to realize.

One teacher can go after a career, for example, because they want to be in charge of something. I've known plenty of teachers who don't do it for the love of teaching, but simply for the power and control, even if they mask it as something noble. At the same time I've seen plenty of teachers who care more about the impact they make than the pay they get.

You cant always quantify success in terms of numbers, nor should you.

What bugs me most about you is that I feel that you cannot square the fact that I am happy for you, even when you have more than I do.

BUT as far as I am concerned, I don't ask for raises because, right now, because I have what I need. But I also do not like raises because it puts me in the position of being owned. I have gotten TWO raises I did not ask for and I have seen in prior jobs, ESPEICALLY with big business, what happens to those who get moved up.

I am not into committing suicide. The giant pizza franchise I  worked at was famous for chewing up and spitting out store managers and mid level management. Ironically the ones who lasted the longest were the ones at the bottom.

If I ever feel like I need one, I will ask for one. But I don't like the attitude that "look what I did for you" as some sort of obligation to become more of a slave. I could say the same to them.

I don't do my current job for the pay or the glamor at all. I love my job because RIGHT NOW, it provides me with the stability and work environment that keeps me sane. No amount of money will make me keep a job I hate.

How can you explain a comedian or actor going through life never reaching fame, but still do it? How can you explain a musician who goes through life playing nothing but bars and street corners?

You do it because you like to do it and sometimes doing it wont equate to financial security.

 

And how does that conflict with anything I said? I don't really care why people do what they do. I don't care how much they make or don't make. If you're happy, good for you. Then why all the whining about us evil capitalists not paying a high enough wage? Or offering enough benefits? As far as I know, everyone who works for me is apparently satisfied with their wages and I presume that if at any time they thought I wasn't paying enough they would either quit or ask their supervisor for a raise, if they do neither, how am I supposed to know what they are thinking? 

 

Your take on raises is rather humorous to me. I generally offer automatic raises to people (usually 4-5%) just to keep ahead of inflation and give bonuses out when things are particularly profitable. I wonder if anyone thinks I am putting them in a position of being "owned"? Maybe I should keep the money for myself. 

 

What I don't get about you is your equivocation of wage labor and slavery. In the US all work is "at will" (except the military) which means that you can quit any time you feel like with no negative consequences other than perhaps losing a reference. 

 

And now I am REALLY confused. Apparently, you want businesses to pay higher wages, but you also dislike getting unsolicited raises? I guess we are damned if we do and damned if we don't....

I don't know your personal morals. I do know my prior bosses being promised the word only to be shafted.

You want to assume that those with money will never manipulate those with less. You are a fool.

Money can be as abusive as politics or religion and to assume otherwise makes you a fool.

"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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Because you

Brian37 wrote:

Because you keep conflating capitalism to a from of government IT IS NOT! China would not have power if it didn't make money.

In many ways an economic system IS determined by the form of government, specifically by how much government intervention is allowed in the marketplace and who has and who doesn't have property ownership rights. IMO, a government that allows/protects individual ownership of property (and thus creates a capitalist system) is preferable to one that does not.

 

Brian37 wrote:

But you don't want to take into account the amount of manipulation that those with money have.

Outside of using government regulation and laws, exactly what manipulation is so horrible? I think you greatly overestimate the reach of economic power on its own. You can have billions of dollars and you aren't going to have absolute control over the market. Ultimately, customers have the ultimate power over the success or failure of a business and even well established businesses can fail.   

 

Brian37 wrote:

But the reason they don't isn't because they cant afford it, it is because they don't want to.

In some cases yes, in other cases no. Generally speaking, the workforce is the most expensive aspect of most businesses. Some simply can't afford to pay more and stay solvent. Although, in many cases businesses could. Why should they? You could probably pay more than $1 for a McChicken sandwich. Should you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

 I simply think that you falsely think that everyone but the rich are the bad guy.

No, I think that anyone who steals is a bad guy. Whether you are rich, poor or middle class, stealing from another person is wrong and when allowed through the government, it creates an unpleasant climate of power grabbing to control who gets stolen from. So GE, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac et al. are all really bad guys in my book. Certainly worse in scale than the random welfare bum, but just because they are worse doesn't mean that the welfare bum is right to steal from others. That is why I am anti-government, not anti-poor. The poor aren't the problem, the rich aren't the problem. The problem is a government that promotes theft from one group to give to the other and generally, it is those who make 250k + but aren't quite rich enough to buy a Senator that get shafted the most. The most obvious solution is for everyone to agree to stop using government to steal from everyone else. But I know that is a pipe dream. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: The

Beyond Saving wrote:

 The most obvious solution is for everyone to agree to stop using government to steal from everyone else.

Except of course your acesses to your land, water, oil, etc... Then the government must to protect your right to take them(one might say steal them) and not let others have access.

We grant drilling rights to an oil company, then they should keep all the wealth that comes from these wells? Why can't the welfare bum think of his payments as just getting his share of the wealth? Doesn't the whole system of natural resourse ownship amount to welfare for the rich?

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

OK, I have a dog in this fight and probably not the one that would be expected.

 

I am specifically licensed to handle food for immunologically compromised people. I have a second dog as well because I used to work for a company that was similar.

 

Item one: My former employer was a corporation with standing at the federal IRS. He paid taxes and rent. Not a valid argument.

 

Item two: Gloves are bad and should never appear in food service. They are a serious violation of best practice.

 

How many times have you ordered lunch and they guy has put gloves on before starting? Did he wash his hands first or did he put the gloves on his potentially filthy hands?

 

I do not say anything about a specific person but I do ask if you would prefer to have your meal made by a hand washer vs a person who has filthy hands but uses gloves? Remember that filthy people do filthy things.

 

You do not know just how bad it gets in food service. How many times have you been in an upscale restaurant and your waiter has the order book in his waist band? There is a reason why aprons have a “waiter's pocket”.

 

I bet most people did not even know the terms “waiter's pocket” but it is real. Four star restaurants often do not use it. There is a presumption of “class” inherent in exposing customers to doody germs.

 

Poop. Fecal mater. Shit. Call it what you want, your waiter is either clean or not clean.

I think, with you being DXed with OCD, you have more cause to be afraid of germs than most. It's one of the comorbids of OCD.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Because you keep conflating capitalism to a from of government IT IS NOT! China would not have power if it didn't make money.

In many ways an economic system IS determined by the form of government, specifically by how much government intervention is allowed in the marketplace and who has and who doesn't have property ownership rights. IMO, a government that allows/protects individual ownership of property (and thus creates a capitalist system) is preferable to one that does not.

 

Brian37 wrote:

But you don't want to take into account the amount of manipulation that those with money have.

Outside of using government regulation and laws, exactly what manipulation is so horrible? I think you greatly overestimate the reach of economic power on its own. You can have billions of dollars and you aren't going to have absolute control over the market. Ultimately, customers have the ultimate power over the success or failure of a business and even well established businesses can fail.   

 

Brian37 wrote:

But the reason they don't isn't because they cant afford it, it is because they don't want to.

In some cases yes, in other cases no. Generally speaking, the workforce is the most expensive aspect of most businesses. Some simply can't afford to pay more and stay solvent. Although, in many cases businesses could. Why should they? You could probably pay more than $1 for a McChicken sandwich. Should you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

 I simply think that you falsely think that everyone but the rich are the bad guy.

No, I think that anyone who steals is a bad guy. Whether you are rich, poor or middle class, stealing from another person is wrong and when allowed through the government, it creates an unpleasant climate of power grabbing to control who gets stolen from. So GE, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac et al. are all really bad guys in my book. Certainly worse in scale than the random welfare bum, but just because they are worse doesn't mean that the welfare bum is right to steal from others. That is why I am anti-government, not anti-poor. The poor aren't the problem, the rich aren't the problem. The problem is a government that promotes theft from one group to give to the other and generally, it is those who make 250k + but aren't quite rich enough to buy a Senator that get shafted the most. most obvious solution is for everyone to agree to stop using government to steal from everyone else. But I know that is a pipe dream. 

You keep missing my point.

No one is talking about taking away private business or property ownership. Although our Supreme Court has recently made theft by abuse of eminent domain laws by big business legal to force people off perfectly good property and pay them under market value so a Wal Mart can be built. So don't talk to me about government and theft.

CHINA's government has taken our market model and beaten us at our own game. They make things cheaper and their manufacturing has exploded. The only difference between their market and our market is that their "capitialism" is authoritarian capitalism, but they still make money.

Anarchy is a pipe dream, it will never exist anywhere. You will always have power structures because we are a social species. You have more oppressive power structures such as China and Iran, and then you have more open political and business competition in the west in Europe and America, yes.

BUT again, what you will never have no government at all, that is absurd and you would not want that in reality anyway, because you would end up with a power vacuum ending up in a monopoly of power.

You falsely pretend however that the private sector cannot be abusive. Bullshit. If right wingers got everything they wanted as far as law, there would be no minimum wage and we would degrade to child labor and the slave wages the Chinese workers have.

I do not think it is "theft" to pay for our military, nor was it "theft" even the Bush wars that have gone nowhere. That waste was waste, not theft just because I didn't agree with those wars.

I want cops, I want military, I want firemen, and I want a free market. What I don't want is what we have now, and exploding pay gap and run away cost of living which is creating more poverty. I have been around long enough to know what the right wing has done to destroy our economy by their "no rules" attitude.

You want me to have sympathy for businesses who not only didn't pay taxes, but shipped jobs overseas while paying their CEOs ridiculous salaries. You want me to have sympathy for banks and car companies and insurance companies who sit in cubicles denying health care to people.

NOPE I am done with your fear mongering and I have seen far to much exploitation by the top to have one lick of empathy for their rape of the tax payers. This all started with Reagan and every president since, including this one now, has been party to corporate pick pocketing.

YOU need to tell your corporate buddies they need to start caring if they expect the rest of us to care about them. You want me to give a shit, then prove it, tell them to start caring themselves. I don't see shit from them except hire prices and more and more crappy wages and less jobs here.

I am tired of your dead horse and false accusations.

The solution isn't no government or too much government, the solution is INTROSPECTION which the top clearly lacks. If they cared there would be less government, but since they dont care about whom they fuck over the rest of us only have one entity to turn to. Our government is not "Of the rich, for the rich, by the rich" but that is what we have.

 

 

 

 

 

"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: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Explain Microsoft and Windows, that is shit sold as ice cream. My name is spelled....and my address is.....

If the market always weeded out bad products Bill Gates should not be a billionaire. Microsoft products are the Chinese cheap crap of software with about as much quality as plastic toy made in China by slave labor.

You still want to pretend that in the private sector that money does not equal power when clearly it does. EVEN without weapons or force you can create conditions on paper(laws) that favor protecting certain groups at the expense of others, WHICH YOU ADMITTED TO.

I think the reality is that you are merely for things you like, not competition against things you like and cry sour grapes when your ideas get out competed.

Again, things are not black and white and you are a fool if you think the private sector is immune from being as abusive as a government or religion. I think the banking industry and car companies over the past decade have proven that abuse can exist in the private sector. Otherwise the tax payers wouldn't be bailing them out.

 

Obviously a lot of people prefer Windows. There are other options out there that people can choose but the vast majority of people choose to purchase Microsoft products. No doubt Bill Gates genius at marketing has played a key role. Also the fact that he LED the personal computer movement when Steve Jobs was too obsessed with perfecting the product. So many people learned how to use computers on Windows and people like things they are comfortable with. Bill Gates never used a gun to force anyone to purchase his products. You go to the store and you decide, Windows PC or Mac or other. 

 

Paper laws ARE using force. By definition a law is backed up by government force and exactly what I am arguing against. And if you look at the abuses of the banks and car companies you will find that they are abuses BECAUSE they used laws. The laws are the instrument of the abuse, which is why I am against them. A company that does not use laws or regulations to compete, but instead uses marketing and ideas is not abusive. ANY company that uses laws and regulations to compete is reprehensible. Unfortunately, the majority of companies in modern times use laws and regulations to compete and that is precisely the culture I wish to change by removing the governments power to create laws or regulations.  

 

The tax payer bailouts are the ultimate example of laws being abused. It is absolutely outrageous that any company is bailed out. Every single one of those mother fuckers should have gone broke. That is how capitalism works, failed companies go bankrupt and are bought out by more efficient companies. We threw capitalism out the window in favor of cronyism where the government is deciding which companies succeed and which fail. It is despicable and I try my best not to purchase any products from any company that accepted government bailout money. Unfortunately, the list of companies that accept money is much longer than companies that have not. We need to stop all government/corporation incest right now, the only way to do that is to remove the governments power to be actively involved in business. 

 

I don't understand how you conclude that we need more regulation while admitting that regulations are written by the most corrupt of businesses. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is an outrage to bail out any company, then why the fuck do you support the policies set up over the past 30 years that has allowed those at the top to hold us hostage? You are a fool if you think the left set this shit up. The left has been guilty in complicity in not having enough backbone to break up big money in politics and are nothing but a bunch of fucking wimps in allowing the top to pay off government.

You are not going to use the scare tactic of "you're trying to rob us" while admitting that we(the tax payers) got robbed by the top and bailed them out after being robbed.

We are in this mess for one reason only, greed, not good greed, not the type of greed that builds here, but the type that says " I don't give a fuck HOW I do it or who I run over to get it".

If the banks and car companies and the right wing actually cared we wouldn't be in this mess today. They only have themselves to blame and I am tired of them using the rest of us as scapegoats. Now the top is bitching because we are now finally getting wise to their scam. We do not have a free market, otherwise too big to fail wouldn't exist.

What we have is a casino Wal Street. What we have are banks who bet on both red and black so they win even when they lose and then dump any losses on us. This is nothing but legalized racketeering. But there is not a damned thing moral about it simply because lawmakers made it legal.

I live lived far to long to buy your scare tactics. The top wants to take us back to the horrible conditions of the wild west days before WW2 and the age of regulations. I do not, like you, want to see our country turn back the clock.

You do not see that we are on the same path of destruction that caused the great depression BECAUSE of the big money paying off government to set us up to having to bail them out.

AGAIN less regulation comes with responsibility and I do not see a damned thing the top is doing to prove to me that they give one shit about me, much less the middle class.

You want me and the middle class of your back, stop supporting the corporate welfare "nanny state" where we have to pay for their bad behavior. Otherwise don't bitch when we fight back.

 

 

 

"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: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Brian37

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

The crock got big, but you want to blame those without the money to influence politics which is stupid.

 

 

I blame those who have let it get that way and I'm one of them but you are talking as if there were big monopolies and huge corporations when this country started. The people elect the politicians, it's time for a purge IMO.

You don't need money to vote. You don't need money to carry around a sign. You don't need money to speak out. 

Lifelong politicians are a huge part of the problem, it's a career, a job and when you have a career and a job it's just that. Public servants are a thing of the past. Working for your country because you care is a thing of the past. It's all about how fat you can get your wallet and what does it matter if it is at the expense of the people, they were stupid enough to give you the power by electing your ass.

I do think that that is part of the problem. I think there should be term limits just like the President, and I would also like to see them on the Supreme Court too.

There WAS a time when both the left and right cared. But if you look at our history the nastiness in politics has always been around.

One of my favorite letters was a response by Jefferson to Adams. Adams had sent him a letter complaining about the mud slinging in the media and thought that the media should "respect" their elected officials. Jefferson, in much more eloquent words than I am describing here basically politely bitch slapped Adams reminding him that the Declaration of Independence was a "fuck you letter" to the king, and that the blasphemy of elected officials was part of living in a free society.

Certainly that is more of a free speech issue than economic issue. But it does demonstrate how much Jefferson valued "if you want something raise your voice". But I don't think it is always the voter's fault. I think it is as much the irresponsible marketing by our politicians. It is a combo of exploitation on the politicians part and apathy on the voters part.

Jefferson IS one of my heros, and he most certainly, out of all the founders was much more a social and economic liberal than people know. He valued business ownership AND would care more about a politicians actions than their lip service to a label, and wouldn't have cared about an atheist running for office for that matter.

I really think without him, our progress on social issues would have taken longer and we would be much more stuck in the past than we are now.

He insisted in the Virgina Religious Freedom act, which went on to become the inspiration of Madison's First Amendment, in a state at the time, which was very sectarian, insisted that "no man be compelled" on issues of religion.

He managed to convince a very religious state senate, "Hey, if you want the right to bitch about others, then you must allow them to bitch about you, and the only way to do that is to not chose sides on religious issues when making laws".

He was brilliant for his time, and I have no doubt considering that he freed Sally and his kids he had with her, at a time when freeing slaves was considered blasphemy and political suicide, he took a huge risk and his insistence of protecting criticism of any and all things, long term, opened the door for everyone who raised their voice.

Jefferson was a flaming liberal and it burns the right wing when I point that out.

If I had to pick one person most responsible for the freedoms both Beyond and I have today, Jefferson is the least understood and in my estimation the MVP of the Revolution and our Constitution. Ironically, he didn't sign it.

And as much as I bitch about Beyond, I really do think he is, like I am, raising his voice to what he feels is true and despite our disagreements, now more than ever, especially the last two years, with all the problems our country has, the fact that we are here, and have still survived under both parties, gives me some comfort that no matter who is in power, as long as we all have our voices, we will be fine long term.

This country has been through far worse shit and the good thing about it is no matter who is in power, their side or my side, we all have the opportunity to appeal and change.

I am quite sure before I die that we will have another republican president and Beyond need take comfort that even if Obama wins the next election he will only be in office until 2016. My comfort was that I knew Bush could not run for a 3rd term. And even if McCain had won, even he wouldn't have screwed up as badly. Bush Sr and Reagan were much better presidents and I would have voted for them if they were my only choice against Bush Jr.

I think WE don't have to respect the claims of our politicians or the claims of our opposition. But I think Beyond can at least agree with all our flaws in our history, the First Amendment has to bee the most brilliant piece of law making in human history.

So to Beyond I say "bring it on". I can see you as being just as American as I am even if your claims drive me nuts.

Now enough of this olive branch crap. Back to the brawl.

 

 

 

"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: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If it is an

Brian37 wrote:

If it is an outrage to bail out any company, then why the fuck do you support the policies set up over the past 30 years that has allowed those at the top to hold us hostage? You are a fool if you think the left set this shit up. The left has been guilty in complicity in not having enough backbone to break up big money in politics and are nothing but a bunch of fucking wimps in allowing the top to pay off government.

You are not going to use the scare tactic of "you're trying to rob us" while admitting that we(the tax payers) got robbed by the top and bailed them out after being robbed.

I wasn't aware it was so much a scare tactic as fact. The only reason I don't argue with you about corporate welfare is because as far as I can tell, we agree on the issue. (Which confuses me as to why you support Obama, who was all for bailouts) My point is that you pointing at the "rich" and saying "they do it too" is not a rational excuse to take from one group of people and give to another. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I live lived far to long to buy your scare tactics. The top wants to take us back to the horrible conditions of the wild west days before WW2 and the age of regulations. I do not, like you, want to see our country turn back the clock.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that you accuse me of scare tactics in the same sentence that you use scare tactics? And you accuse me of both "supporting the policies of the last 30 years" (which I don't, 99% of my posts on this site have been extremely critical of the policies of the last 30 years) and also wanting to go back to the "wild west" days of pre WWII which in fact I do support going back to many of those policies. Although as a practical economic matter, that is impossible because of the nature of our global economy.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

You do not see that we are on the same path of destruction that caused the great depression BECAUSE of the big money paying off government to set us up to having to bail them out.

Wrong. I do see that, and when I have pointed out the looming economic problems we have you accuse me of scare tactics. And is is because of government. Your solution seems to be to somehow get rid of the big money, I think the far better solution is to get rid of government because getting rid of big money is impossible. Getting rid of big government is simply unlikely. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You want me and the middle class of your back, stop supporting the corporate welfare "nanny state" where we have to pay for their bad behavior. Otherwise don't bitch when we fight back.

Show me one post on this site where I have EVER supported corporate welfare. I have NEVER supported corporate welfare and have repeated that sentiment dozens of times. I do not believe the government has business redistributing money to ANYONE be they rich, poor, corporate, white, black, red, purple, yellow or green. So I think I stand on solid enough ground to bitch about anyone abusing taxpayer dollars. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:robj101

Brian37 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

The crock got big, but you want to blame those without the money to influence politics which is stupid.

 

 

I blame those who have let it get that way and I'm one of them but you are talking as if there were big monopolies and huge corporations when this country started. The people elect the politicians, it's time for a purge IMO.

You don't need money to vote. You don't need money to carry around a sign. You don't need money to speak out. 

Lifelong politicians are a huge part of the problem, it's a career, a job and when you have a career and a job it's just that. Public servants are a thing of the past. Working for your country because you care is a thing of the past. It's all about how fat you can get your wallet and what does it matter if it is at the expense of the people, they were stupid enough to give you the power by electing your ass.

I do think that that is part of the problem. I think there should be term limits just like the President, and I would also like to see them on the Supreme Court too.

There WAS a time when both the left and right cared. But if you look at our history the nastiness in politics has always been around.

One of my favorite letters was a response by Jefferson to Adams. Adams had sent him a letter complaining about the mud slinging in the media and thought that the media should "respect" their elected officials. Jefferson, in much more eloquent words than I am describing here basically politely bitch slapped Adams reminding him that the Declaration of Independence was a "fuck you letter" to the king, and that the blasphemy of elected officials was part of living in a free society.

Certainly that is more of a free speech issue than economic issue. But it does demonstrate how much Jefferson valued "if you want something raise your voice". But I don't think it is always the voter's fault. I think it is as much the irresponsible marketing by our politicians. It is a combo of exploitation on the politicians part and apathy on the voters part.

Jefferson IS one of my heros, and he most certainly, out of all the founders was much more a social and economic liberal than people know. He valued business ownership AND would care more about a politicians actions than their lip service to a label, and wouldn't have cared about an atheist running for office for that matter.

I really think without him, our progress on social issues would have taken longer and we would be much more stuck in the past than we are now.

He insisted in the Virgina Religious Freedom act, which went on to become the inspiration of Madison's First Amendment, in a state at the time, which was very sectarian, insisted that "no man be compelled" on issues of religion.

He managed to convince a very religious state senate, "Hey, if you want the right to bitch about others, then you must allow them to bitch about you, and the only way to do that is to not chose sides on religious issues when making laws".

He was brilliant for his time, and I have no doubt considering that he freed Sally and his kids he had with her, at a time when freeing slaves was considered blasphemy and political suicide, he took a huge risk and his insistence of protecting criticism of any and all things, long term, opened the door for everyone who raised their voice.

Jefferson was a flaming liberal and it burns the right wing when I point that out.

If I had to pick one person most responsible for the freedoms both Beyond and I have today, Jefferson is the least understood and in my estimation the MVP of the Revolution and our Constitution. Ironically, he didn't sign it.

And as much as I bitch about Beyond, I really do think he is, like I am, raising his voice to what he feels is true and despite our disagreements, now more than ever, especially the last two years, with all the problems our country has, the fact that we are here, and have still survived under both parties, gives me some comfort that no matter who is in power, as long as we all have our voices, we will be fine long term.

This country has been through far worse shit and the good thing about it is no matter who is in power, their side or my side, we all have the opportunity to appeal and change.

I am quite sure before I die that we will have another republican president and Beyond need take comfort that even if Obama wins the next election he will only be in office until 2016. My comfort was that I knew Bush could not run for a 3rd term. And even if McCain had won, even he wouldn't have screwed up as badly. Bush Sr and Reagan were much better presidents and I would have voted for them if they were my only choice against Bush Jr.

I think WE don't have to respect the claims of our politicians or the claims of our opposition. But I think Beyond can at least agree with all our flaws in our history, the First Amendment has to bee the most brilliant piece of law making in human history.

So to Beyond I say "bring it on". I can see you as being just as American as I am even if your claims drive me nuts.

Now enough of this olive branch crap. Back to the brawl.

 

I agree with almost everything here. Jefferson was certainly one of the most libertarian among our founders. He was extremely "liberal" on social issues, but also a fiscally conservative small government non-interference type guy. I imagine me and him would agree on a lot. Almost makes me wish for an afterlife so I could talk with him. 

 

And I think we can all agree that GW was one of the, if not the worst President we have had in living memory. (Unless someone on here is ancient enough to remember Wilson)

 

Although, I don't think it really makes a big difference whether we have a Republican or Democrat as President. Both parties have become big government parties. The only real difference is who they want to hand taxpayer money out to and which companies get regulations that favor them. Anyone who really cares about the country should vote 3rd party. Unfortunately, most voters are too stupid or too apathetic.