Profits made by payback of bailouts excuse?

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Profits made by payback of bailouts excuse?

While it is true that the bailouts worked and the tax payers made a profit, how the fuck does that excuse the initial behavior that caused the mess in the first place?

While we had no choice to bail out the banks and car companies, and we did make some profit in doing so, how the fuck does this excuse the behavior in the first place? The profits we did make did not go directly to the individuals fleeced by the scams, nor did the individuals who lost their homes or their jobs get back what they lost.

Not to mention that this is a bad model for ANY country to live by. Basically it amounts to advocating a ponzy scheme.

Our economy would be clearly better if the crimes committed never happened, despite the profit we made. What we have gained pales in the damage it has caused in the lagging "recovery" and the trust in our free market. The profits we made on these bailouts pail compared to the damage done.

To say the bailouts worked is to reward bad behavior.  Certainly you can rob a bank or steel a priceless painting and sell it on the black market for a profit, but that does not make the initial crime moral or good long term for society.

 

 

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:. They

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
. They are welcome to leave at any time if they believe I don't pay enough or to renegotiate.

The fact that you said FIRST "They are welcome to leave if they believe I dont pay enough" says it all. That entire quote is code for "FUCK EM".

No, I am blunt, I mean what I say not some secret code.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Don't lie, if someone doesn't believe you pay them enough, you'll tell them where the door is. Sure, by law you have every right to do that. Just because you own a busines and you have absolute rights over it, AS YOU SHOULD, does not mean in every instance you are justified or even moral. Legal and moral are not the same thing.

It depends 100% on who the person is and what I believe they are worth. Some of my employees I pay well above market value because I believe they are valuable. If an employee is doing a good job I really hope they come to me and give me a chance to outbid the competition before they leave. I don't pay my employees minimum wage because I don't like to work, I don't want to have to watch over them like an eagle to make sure they work. I pay people enough that I can trust them to take care of all the details so I don't have to. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You're employees are not just there to stroke your ego. Thats why you said it like that. Maybe you need to see a shrink about your control issues.

What control issues? I am fucking lazy. If I don't have to control something I don't. My management style is very much "here is your job, take care of it." I expect my employees to deal with any problems on their own. I select people I believe are competent, have good judgement and will work when I am not around. I make sure things are set up so I can disappear without anyone noticing. This week, I went to the office one day and took everyone to lunch. Otherwise, it is hunting season and the weather has been great- I have been stomping around the woods.

 

I don't hire people to "stroke my ego", I hire people to do a specific job. If I don't have a job for them to do, I don't hire them. I don't believe in hiring for the sake of hiring, that is what government does. I don't know where you got the idea that I have any interest in being a micro manager. I'm a libertarian, I believe people work best when they are left the fuck alone and I apply that ideology to my business as much as I wish I could apply it to our government. I don't coddle employees, I don't hold their hands, I give them a job and expect it to be done. I don't use time cards or clocks or set hours. I pay for the job and let them work when they want. Those that are exceptional get rewarded well, those that don't get the work done do not.  

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No, I am blunt, I mean

Quote:
No, I am blunt, I mean what I say not some secret code.

Right,

Blunt would be "Hit the road" which is what you started out with

Compassion would be, "Lets talk about it" which you back peddled to.

So your default position is, "I am in charge"

Which means you care more about yourself than those who work under 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: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Because banks are in

Quote:
Because banks are in the business of financing not education.

Right.

Which puts them in the preditory position. Like I said, legal doesn't mean moral.

So all you advocate is "Anything goes".

But crybabies like you bitch when "anything goes" doesn't lead to the outcome you want.

Maybe education, and not "every man for themselves" is the key.

 

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:No, I am

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
No, I am blunt, I mean what I say not some secret code.

Right,

Blunt would be "Hit the road" which is what you started out with

Compassion would be, "Lets talk about it" which you back peddled to.

So your default position is, "I am in charge"

Which means you care more about yourself than those who work under you.

Take out of context much? I was speaking of my words to you. Although, my employees know exactly where I stand. I am purchasing labor from them, I give them the same respect I expect from customers that buy my products. I don't know why it is such a fucking complex concept for you to understand that I don't see an employee as fundamentally different than you see your barber. They perform a job, I pay them an agreed upon amount. Whether or not I like them or they like me is irrelevant. All that matters is whether I am satisfied with the quality of their work and whether or not we can negotiate a price we both believe is fair. My "default" position is I pay you to do job X, I am willing to separate with Y dollars for this job, will you do it? If the answer is no I find someone else. If the answer is yes, I expect the job to be done. 

 

And yes, I do care more about myself. Does that make me evil? You care more about yourself. And if you say you don't your lying. I'm looking out for my own best interest and I assume my employees are looking out for their best interests. I assume they aren't going to work if I don't pay them. I don't see how that is relevant. It is an economic transaction, I am purchasing a product from them, some of my employees have become friends others I barely know. What difference does it make? Do you "care" about Walmart when you buy shampoo from them? Do you worry that Walmart isn't charging a high enough price? Of course not. You pay the price they offer the shampoo for if you think it is reasonable. If you think the cost is too much you go somewhere else. Same thing when I purchase labor, if they are willing to do it for a price I consider reasonable, great. If not I look elsewhere. If labor everywhere is more expensive than I consider reasonable I evaluate if the labor is really necessary and whether I should pay the price or live without it.

 

How the fuck else do you suggest I determine wages? Please give me your formula since obviously you know so much more about how businesses should be ran. I have asked you dozens of times to tell me how much I should pay my employees and you haven't given me an answer. Give me a number, or some formula or method to determine what the wages I offer should be. You criticize the way I do things, but you have never offered an alternative. You simply call me greedy, selfish and evil. And its getting a little old. You bitch about there not being enough jobs, I am providing jobs- you are not, you have stated that you would not own a business and provide jobs if given the opportunity.  Yet you turn around and accuse me of being part of the problem. How does that make even the smallest bit of sense in your brain? IF you were an employer, what method would you use to determine wages?

 

While your at it, I would love for you to tell me how to determine what my "fair share" would be to pay in taxes. Exactly how much (either as a percentage or amount) is a "fair share". How do I determine it? Pretend I am feeling guilty and want to make up for not paying my fair share. If you refuse to define the terms of your accusations how am I supposed to know what you want me to do? I asked you quite directly exactly what I am supposed to do differently, but you ignored it. I've defined my idea of "fair", I think everyone should pay exactly the same percentage. What is your definition of fair?

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Not taking it out of

Not taking it out of context. Just facing you with what you are in denial of.

I've seen far too much of this attitude and lie to know it is all bullshit.

Put your money where your mouth is. Next time you go into work, ask each and every employee, down to the lowest paid if they are making enough to survive. My guess is that they will lie to you. But maybe you'll get lucky enough to hear the truth.

THEY put you where you are at and simply because you learned terms like "supply and demand" and "market rates" doesn't mean you know shit about the realities of others when you are not at work. You have a simplistic view and scripted view of how life should go.  Life is not a script but people like you unfortunately think it is or should be. You project yourself on others and don't even know it.

I doubt you have the guts to do it. Stay in your utopia dream state.

 

 

 

 

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Not taking it

Brian37 wrote:

Not taking it out of context. Just facing you with what you are in denial of.

I've seen far too much of this attitude and lie to know it is all bullshit.

Put your money where your mouth is. Next time you go into work, ask each and every employee, down to the lowest paid if they are making enough to survive. My guess is that they will lie to you. But maybe you'll get lucky enough to hear the truth.

THEY put you where you are at and simply because you learned terms like "supply and demand" and "market rates" doesn't mean you know shit about the realities of others when you are not at work. You have a simplistic view and scripted view of how life should go.  Life is not a script but people like you unfortunately think it is or should be. You project yourself on others and don't even know it.

I doubt you have the guts to do it. Stay in your utopia dream state.

 

Well if they are going to lie to me, why don't you tell me how much money it takes to survive? I believe you can survive on around $15k and even my part time employees do better than that. Obviously, every one of them would like more money, I would like to have a trillion dollars.

 

My money goes exactly where my mouth is and my method works quite well, but since you know so much about running businesses, why don't you enlighten me? Exactly how much should I pay employees? If you were an employer, how would you determine wages? You are quick to criticize me and other employers but you have not offered even a theoretical alternative.

 

Am I supposed to just ask them and if they say "I need $1,000,000" I'm supposed to pay them that? I'd love to pay every employee a million but I don't make that kind of cash. Paying employees is all well and good but it doesn't serve anybodies interest if the business goes bankrupt. So provide me some guideline for determining wages that will allow my business to remain viable while paying the employees an amount you approve of. 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Not taking it out of context. Just facing you with what you are in denial of.

I've seen far too much of this attitude and lie to know it is all bullshit.

Put your money where your mouth is. Next time you go into work, ask each and every employee, down to the lowest paid if they are making enough to survive. My guess is that they will lie to you. But maybe you'll get lucky enough to hear the truth.

THEY put you where you are at and simply because you learned terms like "supply and demand" and "market rates" doesn't mean you know shit about the realities of others when you are not at work. You have a simplistic view and scripted view of how life should go.  Life is not a script but people like you unfortunately think it is or should be. You project yourself on others and don't even know it.

I doubt you have the guts to do it. Stay in your utopia dream state.

 

Well if they are going to lie to me, why don't you tell me how much money it takes to survive? I believe you can survive on around $15k and even my part time employees do better than that. Obviously, every one of them would like more money, I would like to have a trillion dollars.

 

My money goes exactly where my mouth is and my method works quite well, but since you know so much about running businesses, why don't you enlighten me? Exactly how much should I pay employees? If you were an employer, how would you determine wages? You are quick to criticize me and other employers but you have not offered even a theoretical alternative.

 

Am I supposed to just ask them and if they say "I need $1,000,000" I'm supposed to pay them that? I'd love to pay every employee a million but I don't make that kind of cash. Paying employees is all well and good but it doesn't serve anybodies interest if the business goes bankrupt. So provide me some guideline for determining wages that will allow my business to remain viable while paying the employees an amount you approve of. 

That says it all "I would like to have a trillion dollars"

THERE  that right there is what the problem is.

You want to put the burden on those with less "Whats wrong with 15K? You are a fucking hypocrite and lier. You have no problem projecting limits on those below you, but don't want limits yourself.

FYI, the guidelines you already know. "Going rate and supply and demand" The problem is that those guidelines are now out of proportion because "I want a trillion dollars". 

The guidelines you already know SHOULD BE combined and adjusted to the climate of survival. A minimum standard. Our current pay gap is not sustainable.

The point is, nothing will ever be enough for you. Your morals suck and you are nothing but a greedy dick.

 

 

 

 

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:That says it

Brian37 wrote:

That says it all "I would like to have a trillion dollars"

THERE  that right there is what the problem is.

Would you turn down a trillion? The difference is that I accept that I don't do enough to provide a trillion dollars worth of value to my fellow citizens, so I don't get mad at people with billions. I would like it, but I haven't earned it nor am willing to do what would be necessary to even attempt to make that kind of money, therefore I don't have it and I settle for what I have earned.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You want to put the burden on those with less "Whats wrong with 15K? You are a fucking hypocrite and lier. You have no problem projecting limits on those below you, but don't want limits yourself.

I'm not projecting limits, I simply have to limit what I pay out of economic reality. I have X number of dollars, I can't spend more than X. If someone thinks that I am unable to pay them what they have earned, they are welcome to compete with me, work for someone else or whatever to make whatever amount they decide to earn.

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

FYI, the guidelines you already know. "Going rate and supply and demand" The problem is that those guidelines are now out of proportion because "I want a trillion dollars". 

The guidelines you already know SHOULD BE combined and adjusted to the climate of survival. A minimum standard. Our current pay gap is not sustainable.

And exactly what the fuck should that "minimum standard" be? I don't know what that is. I have no information from you to even attempt to determine what that minimum standard should be. 

 

I have my minimum standard. I pay enough to attract workers that I believe are high quality because high quality workers will go elsewhere if I don't pay them enough. I make what I consider a reasonable offer, if the potential employee negotiates (which few do) I negotiate and try to work out a deal. So far I have always been able to offer a deal the potential employee accepts as I am willing to pay much more for someone willing/able to negotiate than someone who just accepts.

 

All I want from you is to define "minimum standard", what should it be if I wanted to follow your "morality"? If you can't define it I can't imagine why you think I would follow it. 

Brian37 wrote:

The point is, nothing will ever be enough for you. Your morals suck and you are nothing but a greedy dick. 

Uh huh. I think your a greedy fuck for not tipping your barber enough. 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

That says it all "I would like to have a trillion dollars"

THERE  that right there is what the problem is.

Would you turn down a trillion? The difference is that I accept that I don't do enough to provide a trillion dollars worth of value to my fellow citizens, so I don't get mad at people with billions. I would like it, but I haven't earned it nor am willing to do what would be necessary to even attempt to make that kind of money, therefore I don't have it and I settle for what I have earned.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You want to put the burden on those with less "Whats wrong with 15K? You are a fucking hypocrite and lier. You have no problem projecting limits on those below you, but don't want limits yourself.

I'm not projecting limits, I simply have to limit what I pay out of economic reality. I have X number of dollars, I can't spend more than X. If someone thinks that I am unable to pay them what they have earned, they are welcome to compete with me, work for someone else or whatever to make whatever amount they decide to earn.

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

FYI, the guidelines you already know. "Going rate and supply and demand" The problem is that those guidelines are now out of proportion because "I want a trillion dollars". 

The guidelines you already know SHOULD BE combined and adjusted to the climate of survival. A minimum standard. Our current pay gap is not sustainable.

And exactly what the fuck should that "minimum standard" be? I don't know what that is. I have no information from you to even attempt to determine what that minimum standard should be. 

 

I have my minimum standard. I pay enough to attract workers that I believe are high quality because high quality workers will go elsewhere if I don't pay them enough. I make what I consider a reasonable offer, if the potential employee negotiates (which few do) I negotiate and try to work out a deal. So far I have always been able to offer a deal the potential employee accepts as I am willing to pay much more for someone willing/able to negotiate than someone who just accepts.

 

All I want from you is to define "minimum standard", what should it be if I wanted to follow your "morality"? If you can't define it I can't imagine why you think I would follow it. 

Brian37 wrote:

The point is, nothing will ever be enough for you. Your morals suck and you are nothing but a greedy dick. 

Uh huh. I think your a greedy fuck for not tipping your barber enough. 

You don't know what the minimum standard should be? Wait, I thought you were the financial expert. You're great at telling everyone else they have enough. That would indicate you think you know.

There is abundant evidence over the past 30 years that the difference between the top and bottom has exploded. Those are not facts I made up.

The people with your mindset don't understand that that gap is hurting everyone, including you, even though you don't realize 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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You don't know

Brian37 wrote:

You don't know what the minimum standard should be? Wait, I thought you were the financial expert. You're great at telling everyone else they have enough. That would indicate you think you know.

I never told anyone they have enough. I have always said make as much money as you want. I really don't care how much you make, you are worth precisely as much as you are able to persuade people to pay you. It is up to you to decide if you should do more or if you have enough and I support your decision whatever that may be. You are the one who has this mystical standard, I would like to know what it is. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

There is abundant evidence over the past 30 years that the difference between the top and bottom has exploded. Those are not facts I made up.

The people with your mindset don't understand that that gap is hurting everyone, including you, even though you don't realize it. 

Ok, so what is the perfect balance? What should the difference between the top and the bottom be? 

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Beyond Saving[What should

 

Beyond Saving[

What should be cut? Absolutely everything that is not specifically mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Everything else should be taken care of at the state level. That is what our agreement says, and I think the government should abide by it. I know that in reality that isn't going to happen soon. I would start with setting the flat tax at a rate high enough to cover the federal expenditures. I suspect that when everyone is paying 40% suddenly there would be a lot more popular support to find things to cut. Right now there is no incentive as most people receive far more from the government than they pay for. It is easy to think something is worth the price when you don't pay the price. [/quote wrote:

So you only want the government to to pay for the military, cover our debts and provide for the general welfare of the country...no wait...we can't provide for the general welfare of the country...but that's in the Constitution...but welfare is socialism...

Help me out here - is the government supposed to provide for its citizens or not?

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You don't know what the minimum standard should be? Wait, I thought you were the financial expert. You're great at telling everyone else they have enough. That would indicate you think you know.

I never told anyone they have enough. I have always said make as much money as you want. I really don't care how much you make, you are worth precisely as much as you are able to persuade people to pay you. It is up to you to decide if you should do more or if you have enough and I support your decision whatever that may be. You are the one who has this mystical standard, I would like to know what it is. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

There is abundant evidence over the past 30 years that the difference between the top and bottom has exploded. Those are not facts I made up.

The people with your mindset don't understand that that gap is hurting everyone, including you, even though you don't realize it. 

Ok, so what is the perfect balance? What should the difference between the top and the bottom be? 

Certainly not what we have now. If it were so damned good Wall Street wouldn't have the rest of us on it's ass.

 

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So you only

jcgadfly wrote:

So you only want the government to to pay for the military, cover our debts and provide for the general welfare of the country...no wait...we can't provide for the general welfare of the country...but that's in the Constitution...but welfare is socialism...

Help me out here - is the government supposed to provide for its citizens or not?

 

"General welfare" as used in the Constitution has nothing to do with what we consider welfare today. The founders hadn't even imagined our current welfare system as a possibility, they didn't have a "social safety net". And no, I do not think it is the duty of the government to provide for its citizens. The duty of the government is to protect citizens from foreign threats and to play the role of referee in disputes between citizens. 

 

To get a quick understanding of the general welfare clause I recommend reading Federalist Papers #41 written by Madison, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

Federalist 41 wrote:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

Unfortunately, those objectors were right an Madison was wrong. "General welfare" has been dramatically expanded along with the commerce clause has expanded to the point that there is virtually no limit on Congresses powers beyond self limitation.

 

http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm

Or you might consider Thomas Jefferson's famous letter in regards to the Constitutionality of a national bank 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
 

II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So you only want the government to to pay for the military, cover our debts and provide for the general welfare of the country...no wait...we can't provide for the general welfare of the country...but that's in the Constitution...but welfare is socialism...

Help me out here - is the government supposed to provide for its citizens or not?

 

"General welfare" as used in the Constitution has nothing to do with what we consider welfare today. The founders hadn't even imagined our current welfare system as a possibility, they didn't have a "social safety net". And no, I do not think it is the duty of the government to provide for its citizens. The duty of the government is to protect citizens from foreign threats and to play the role of referee in disputes between citizens. 

 

To get a quick understanding of the general welfare clause I recommend reading Federalist Papers #41 written by Madison, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

Federalist 41 wrote:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

 

Unfortunately, those objectors were right an Madison was wrong. "General welfare" has been dramatically expanded along with the commerce clause has expanded to the point that there is virtually no limit on Congresses powers beyond self limitation.

 

http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm

Or you might consider Thomas Jefferson's famous letter in regards to the Constitutionality of a national bank 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
 

II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

 

 

 

Yea, unfortunately you think "general welfare" means tax cuts for the rich. Please tell me where he said "Only listen to the rich and only do what they want"? Please tell me where in that quote he said "of the rich for the rich and by the rich".

You keep forgetting or deliberately omitting that he was huge on anti-trust. And Jefferson, having been a victim himself of bad deals by dishonest businessmen, which cost him dearly, would NOT side with you.

Quote:
but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.

I'd say that 30 million people who either don't have jobs or don't have enough hours IS  a threat to the general welfare of our nation. I don't think "let them eat cake" was what he had in mind. I think he was far more liberal than you try to paint him out to be.

Arguing the "efficiency" of the tax code is what you are arguing which doesn't change who put us in this mess in the first place. I'd say he'd be on my side. I think he'd say, "well beyond, your class created all this pay gap and now that they are fighting back, you are bitching? Maybe if you had thought of that in the first place the government wouldn't have to be concerned about their welfare."

But it does say "general welfare" not "only protect the rich".

Unlike you he knew that people had different lives and different motivations and different desires.

You think "general welfare" means protect the rich and that government should only do what the rich wants.

Sorry, but if the past 30 years is your idea of "general welfare" you are out of your mind and completely out of touch with reality. I doubt those protesters think you are concerned with their "general welfare".

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Certainly not

Brian37 wrote:

Certainly not what we have now. If it were so damned good Wall Street wouldn't have the rest of us on it's ass.

 

Ok, I get that. You hate me, you hate corporations, you hate Wall Street. Fine and dandy. You are very consistent in telling me I am wrong, greedy, immoral etc. Ok. What is your alternative? What could I possibly do that would make you satisfied that I wasn't greedy? If I was worried about it, which I am not. But I am extremely curious what you would consider fair and moral.

 

The top two questions I have for anyone on the left that almost always go unanswered or dodged.

 

1. What is a "fair share" in regards to tax rates- how would I calculate to determine whether or not I am paying it? Is 39.4% fair? 50%? 90%? 100%? A completely different tax system?

 

2. What is a "fair" or "livable" wage? Is it a minimum dollar amount or a percentage of the profits made by that employee, a percentage of total profits? How do I calculate it to know whether or not I am paying it? 

 

I mean really, if the only thing you can throw at me is "your not paying your fair share" or "you need to pay a livable wage", "your greedy" without being able to define the terms it seems to me that you don't have a leg to stand on. I could be paying my employees a million each and you would probably say the same.

 

I can answer those two questions pretty easily.

 

1.

A "fair" tax rate would be $27,150 per taxpayer, that is how much our government is currently spending. I would prefer to cut taxes and pay less then that but I think it i fair for everyone to pay the amount the government spends in their name. Since I am willing to concede that it is impossible to collect that from everyone, I am willing to settle on a flat tax rate instead of an amount. That means, everyone should be paying 47% of their AGI. So in that sense, I am not paying my fair share, and neither are you. I suggest cutting spending so all of us have a smaller fair share.

 

2. A fair wage is whatever amount two parties negotiate it to be. The employer has a range they are willing to spend, the employee has a range they are willing to work within. It is the purpose of negotiation for the employer and employee to determine if and where those two ranges overlap. Whatever the resulting agreement is works for me. I don't see any problem as long as both parties are free to go elsewhere in the event that an agreement will not be made and there is no threat of or actual physical force, dishonesty or coercion. 

 

There is my answer, what is yours?

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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yea,

Brian37 wrote:

Yea, unfortunately you think "general welfare" means tax cuts for the rich. Please tell me where he said "Only listen to the rich and only do what they want"? Please tell me where in that quote he said "of the rich for the rich and by the rich".

Evidence? I have never suggested the government do anything to help the rich. I don't think the federal government should do much of anything outside of the specifically enumerated powers. Everything else ought to be up to the states.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You keep forgetting or deliberately omitting that he was huge on anti-trust. And Jefferson, having been a victim himself of bad deals by dishonest businessmen, which cost him dearly, would NOT side with you.

Evidence? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.

I'd say that 30 million people who either don't have jobs or don't have enough hours IS  a threat to the general welfare of our nation. I don't think "let them eat cake" was what he had in mind. I think he was far more liberal than you try to paint him out to be.

Evidence? I would love to have a debate about TJ and his views. Good luck finding quotes to support your side, I have a lot of them. Maybe we could start a new thread on interpreting Jefferson? It would be a nice diversion from calling me greedy and potentially educational for those who haven't read a lot of his writings.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Unlike you he knew that people had different lives and different motivations and different desires.

Where have I said that? I have repeatedly said I don't care what people do. I have long been a champion of doing whatever makes you happy. I often encourage people to take risks and attempt to achieve whatever it is that makes them happy. Every time I do, you rant at me about utopias. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You think "general welfare" means protect the rich and that government should only do what the rich wants.

Where have I said that? I don't think the federal government should do anything outside of its specifically enumerated powers for anyone be they rich, poor or whatever. Read article 1 section 8 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html if it isn't on that list, I don't care who wants it done, I am against it.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Sorry, but if the past 30 years is your idea of "general welfare" you are out of your mind and completely out of touch with reality. I doubt those protesters think you are concerned with their "general welfare".

I have routinely bitched about the direction our country has taken for the last century. I don't know how you paint me as a supporter of the last 30 years. Have you read any of the threads where I bitched about how keynesian economists have taken over both parties? How I argued that the push toward low interest rates for political reasons led to our current problems? How I have consistently argued for removing the federal reserve and their power over our economy? Exactly which policies passed in the last 30 years have you seen me advocate for?

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 The problem with cutting

 The problem with cutting taxes is it's a zero sum game. Taxes can't be cut on one group without them being raised somewhere else. the dream of cutting revenue and cutting spending seems pretty much impossible until the nation gets out of debt (which I can't see it doing without raising taxes or at least letting Bush's tax cuts go away)

As for the fair wage negotiations - the employer wants to get away with spending as little as possible on the employee and doesn't give a damn about paying him what he's worth. The employee wants to be paid as much as possible and doesn't give a damn about being paid what he's worth.

Looks like a set-up for negotiations to go for eternity unless some guidelines are set. That or the employer makes sure he goes to an employee pool where he can take advantage of his work force (not saying you do).

Also, how often should renegotiation happen? Once a month? Once a quarter? Once every six months? Once a year? Whenever economic conditions for the organization/person change? 

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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: The problem

jcgadfly wrote:

 The problem with cutting taxes is it's a zero sum game. Taxes can't be cut on one group without them being raised somewhere else. the dream of cutting revenue and cutting spending seems pretty much impossible until the nation gets out of debt (which I can't see it doing without raising taxes or at least letting Bush's tax cuts go away)

Agreed. As a practical matter significant tax cuts can't happen until the deficit is dealt with. I think the emphasis should be on cutting spending but I would be willing to seriously consider supporting any proposal that balanced the budget and dealt with our upcoming financial crush of SS and Medicare even if it did include tax increases. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

As for the fair wage negotiations - the employer wants to get away with spending as little as possible on the employee and doesn't give a damn about paying him what he's worth. The employee wants to be paid as much as possible and doesn't give a damn about being paid what he's worth.

Looks like a set-up for negotiations to go for eternity unless some guidelines are set. That or the employer makes sure he goes to an employee pool where he can take advantage of his work force (not saying you do).

Most of the time there is some overlap. The max amount I am willing to pay is usually above the minimum amount a prospective employee is willing to work for. In most cases, I suspect that the result of the negotiation is somewhat less than the employers maximum and more than the employee's minimum. This is partially due to the reality that often neither party is a top notch negotiator and the inherent incentive for both parties to make some kind of deal. Really, by the time your discussing wages the employer has decided they want the employee and the employee has decided they want the job. Neither side wants the deal to fall through because both sides believe they benefit from it.

 

Also, from the employers perspective there are good reasons not to pay an employee the absolute minimum they are willing to accept. An employee accepting the minimum is far more likely to find a new job. Many people accept low paying jobs while job seeking and leave two or three months in for something better paying. Training and hiring is expensive and making sure your pay is competitive makes it less likely a new employee will stray. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Also, how often should renegotiation happen? Once a month? Once a quarter? Once every six months? Once a year? Whenever economic conditions for the organization/person change? 

I generally give out raises once a year around July and give out bonuses in December. My reasoning is that it boosts morale when people see their paychecks bump up and everyone loves Christmas bonuses setting them apart makes them feel appreciated consistently. Also, it makes the paperwork easier for payroll.

 

When I was an employee I asked for a raise every quarter but I rarely worked anywhere longer than a year. Most employers are willing to offer raises if you go in during a profitable time for the company, ask for a reasonable amount and have a strong argument supported by evidence that you are an asset to the company. The most powerful tool is having a competing job offer so you can threaten to go elsewhere.

 

Too many people quit looking for work just because they are employed. I don't get it, especially since so many people bitch about their jobs. It is much easier to negotiate for a good salary when your employer/potential employer knows you have another job to fall back on. Negotiations are about leverage and recognizing who has it and how to get it. 

 

Really, I think it is up for renegotiation whenever either side thinks it is appropriate. If a valued employee was offered a higher paying position I would like the opportunity to renegotiate. 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 The problem with cutting taxes is it's a zero sum game. Taxes can't be cut on one group without them being raised somewhere else. the dream of cutting revenue and cutting spending seems pretty much impossible until the nation gets out of debt (which I can't see it doing without raising taxes or at least letting Bush's tax cuts go away)

Agreed. As a practical matter significant tax cuts can't happen until the deficit is dealt with. I think the emphasis should be on cutting spending but I would be willing to seriously consider supporting any proposal that balanced the budget and dealt with our upcoming financial crush of SS and Medicare even if it did include tax increases. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

As for the fair wage negotiations - the employer wants to get away with spending as little as possible on the employee and doesn't give a damn about paying him what he's worth. The employee wants to be paid as much as possible and doesn't give a damn about being paid what he's worth.

Looks like a set-up for negotiations to go for eternity unless some guidelines are set. That or the employer makes sure he goes to an employee pool where he can take advantage of his work force (not saying you do).

Most of the time there is some overlap. The max amount I am willing to pay is usually above the minimum amount a prospective employee is willing to work for. In most cases, I suspect that the result of the negotiation is somewhat less than the employers maximum and more than the employee's minimum. This is partially due to the reality that often neither party is a top notch negotiator and the inherent incentive for both parties to make some kind of deal. Really, by the time your discussing wages the employer has decided they want the employee and the employee has decided they want the job. Neither side wants the deal to fall through because both sides believe they benefit from it.

 

Also, from the employers perspective there are good reasons not to pay an employee the absolute minimum they are willing to accept. An employee accepting the minimum is far more likely to find a new job. Many people accept low paying jobs while job seeking and leave two or three months in for something better paying. Training and hiring is expensive and making sure your pay is competitive makes it less likely a new employee will stray. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Also, how often should renegotiation happen? Once a month? Once a quarter? Once every six months? Once a year? Whenever economic conditions for the organization/person change? 

I generally give out raises once a year around July and give out bonuses in December. My reasoning is that it boosts morale when people see their paychecks bump up and everyone loves Christmas bonuses setting them apart makes them feel appreciated consistently. Also, it makes the paperwork easier for payroll.

 

When I was an employee I asked for a raise every quarter but I rarely worked anywhere longer than a year. Most employers are willing to offer raises if you go in during a profitable time for the company, ask for a reasonable amount and have a strong argument supported by evidence that you are an asset to the company. The most powerful tool is having a competing job offer so you can threaten to go elsewhere.

 

Too many people quit looking for work just because they are employed. I don't get it, especially since so many people bitch about their jobs. It is much easier to negotiate for a good salary when your employer/potential employer knows you have another job to fall back on. Negotiations are about leverage and recognizing who has it and how to get it. 

 

Really, I think it is up for renegotiation whenever either side thinks it is appropriate. If a valued employee was offered a higher paying position I would like the opportunity to renegotiate. 

"I give raises" there you go again. "I" meaning "Look at me". Which means you are doing more for your own ego than you are for them.

YOU stupidly think that money is the only thing that motivates people. Which is why you'll never understand those below you.

You like being in charge, which by itself is not a bad thing. People need to be in charge. Be it business, schools, military or government. But when you start thinking that there is a "most important" and devalue those as less important, you ARE NOT looking out for others, you are demeaning others.

YOU are only one aspect of society, but not the only one. Quit acting like you are special or more important than those below you.

LOOSE YOUR FUCKING ATTITUDE. I don't want you to lose your wealth, just your attitude. I don't want an end to the free market or our three NEEDED classes. Just your pathetic attitude. Keep acting like a snob and I will continue to treat you like the childish snob you are acting like.

 

 

 

 

 


 

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"I give

Brian37 wrote:

"I give raises" there you go again. "I" meaning "Look at me". Which means you are doing more for your own ego than you are for them.

Um, I pay their salary, even when the company isn't profitable- so who else is giving the raise? What do you think would be the proper, non-egotistical way for me to phrase my answer to JC's direct question? Or is this just another thing where you attack me but don't have any alternative solution?

 

Brian37 wrote:

YOU stupidly think that money is the only thing that motivates people. Which is why you'll never understand those below you.

When did I ever say money is the only thing that motivates people? Money isn't even what motivates me. What gets me off is helping people create successful and profitable businesses and achieving their dreams. Money is necessary so I can then use to invest in more people and help them achieve their dreams. Ultimately, I would like to become an "angel investor" who does nothing but invest in creative start up companies and assists them. If I had the ability to invest in two to three a year, that would be perfect. I find that type of work extremely rewarding and pleasurable in a way that I never found work when I was employed and working solely for the cash.

 

I could find numerous instances on this forum where I actively encouraged people to pursue their dreams and when I have some knowledge that I believe may help I provide it freely. My message has consistently been, "If you are unhappy, you can change and do what you love." Obviously, if you are already doing what you love and are happy the message doesn't apply to you. But, I am disturbed by the number of people who seem to have a doom and gloom attitude that they cannot achieve whatever their dreams are.

 

I believe in most cases their dreams ARE possible or at the very least, there is something they could do that is similar enough to their dreams that they find satisfaction, happiness and fulfillment in their day to day lives. Every time I suggest this and perhaps provide an idea of how it might be possible you launch into your "life isn't a script" and "everyone doesn't want the same thing". Neither or which is relevant. Life isn't a script, but your decisions are a huge factor in the result- and I never suggested that everyone has or should have the same goals. I simply encourage people to attempt to achieve their goals whatever they may be. If your goal is to snort cocaine off a hookers ass I will be as happy for you as I would if your goal was to become the next Warren Buffett. 

 

As far as people who work for me, money IS the primary reason people work. The appraisal business isn't exactly sexy. Now the employees at the wine shop might work for discount wine or because the primary owner is hot, but I don't know, I don't have anything to do with their employment. For the most part, employees are not there for charity or because they think I am a swell guy (I am not hot) or for fun. The day they stop receiving money is the day they stop showing up for work. I actually worked for a place that had paychecks bounce and people didn't come to work the following week, imagine that. Whatever motivations you have for life, you probably go to work because you need the cash unless you are so wealthy you can afford to work for fun; most people aren't. And note, you used the term "those below you" not me. I generally consider workers to simply be selling me their labor, not below or owned or under me. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You like being in charge, which by itself is not a bad thing. People need to be in charge. Be it business, schools, military or government. But when you start thinking that there is a "most important" and devalue those as less important, you ARE NOT looking out for others, you are demeaning others.

I think it is clear that you have been far more demeaning than I in our conversations. I never once criticized the way you live your life, your chosen career, your income or the way you choose to spend or not spend your money (with the exception of throwing the greedy charge back in your face regarding your barber). I fully support and am happy for anyone who is happy with their life. Whether they are contributing a lot to society in general or absolutely nothing, whether they are Steve Jobs, or a crackhead in an alley- I don't care. I don't judge anyone for the decisions they make in life, I simply wish them the best and hope they find happiness. Your the one who thinks that at least some people have some kind of obligation to "society". I don't think anyone has any obligation to provide anything to society as a whole outside of not causing harm to others. Show ONE quote of me saying otherwise.

 

Meanwhile, you have accused me of being greedy, not paying my employees a fair wage, being selfish and immoral. You have criticized me for no reason other than that I run a small business. You have routinely taken my words out of context, ignored direct (see post #65) questions about your beliefs, and refused to provide any evidence to support your beliefs. I have always tried to answer questions directed at me, and when required have supplied evidence from original sources. You refuse to extend me the same courtesy and accuse me of demeaning others? You consistently attack me personally while ignoring my arguments or exaggerating them into some caricature and accuse me of demeaning others? 

 

I believe that my employees are competent enough to negotiate wages on their own without government force. I make contracts with them as equals, they are selling me something I need (their labor) and I am trading something they need (money & business structure) at a rate that both parties find agreeable. I think your position is demeaning them because you apparently think they are helpless victims who are so incapable and incompetent that they allow big bad Beyond Saving to take advantage of them. They aren't. They don't need you to mommy them and treat them like children. They are capable of making their own decisions about where they work, how much they work and how much they earn. Like I said, if at any time they believe I am unreasonable and we can't negotiate a deal, they are free to go work elsewhere or even to start their own company to compete with me.

 

Brian37 wrote:

LOOSE YOUR FUCKING ATTITUDE. I don't want you to lose your wealth, just your attitude. I don't want an end to the free market or our three NEEDED classes. Just your pathetic attitude. Keep acting like a snob and I will continue to treat you like the childish snob you are acting like.

 

Well at least you aren't wishing for me to fail anymore, that is nice. Perhaps you can explain why we "need" three classes?  I can think of no economic reason why there HAS to be a poor class. It wouldn't destroy the economy if everyone who is currently poor was able to get a good paying job and be considered middle class. Of course, there will always be some people who choose not to work, like my brother for example who is a missionary and is poor by choice. But there is no good reason why people have to be poor for any reason except choice.

 

I think it is a worthy goal to create an economy where everyone who applies themselves is at least middleclass, and only those who choose to not work are poor. Yeah, it is a "utopia" in the sense that there will always be poor people for reasons of disability, drug use etc. But saying we "need" the poor implies that we should do things to keep them poor. And we don't so we should do things that increase the ability of the poor to participate more fully in our economy so that they are no longer poor. Which kind of goes back to the earlier discussion I had with JC in this thread. I don't have an easy answer, but I think it is generally positive to improve poor areas and eliminate poverty. 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Um, I pay their

Quote:
Um, I pay their salary,

Translation, "Might makes right"

No shit, you own a business thanks for the update. But "might makes right" may work for you, but you are not all there is to the economy.

You keep thinking I am disputing your rights to own a business  which I am not. I am saying you despite what you may think DO treat your workers as a resource, like the material you buy, and they are NOT the same.

Figure out the difference and you will understand why there are protesters at Wall Street.

"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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Um, I

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Um, I pay their salary,

Translation, "Might makes right"

 

My words don't need translation thanks. I have some experience with the english language, I said what I said and it has absolutely nothing to do with "might makes right".

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Um, I pay their salary,

Translation, "Might makes right"

 

My words don't need translation thanks. I have some experience with the english language, I said what I said and it has absolutely nothing to do with "might makes right".

"I pay their salary"

Yep, we know who is in charge.

 

"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