Lines in the sand, not a good tactic for any human as always beign an absolute.
Offline This thread was also inspired by not just recent events but other events in my past.
Are there lines that should be drawn. Yes, like claims that women should submit to men because a deity told them so, or because of a cultural norm> Or a science class being dumbed down because a creationist wants to treat their claims as an equal probability.
But, I do get down on anyone who gets tunnel vision to the point that "this is the only way this can or should be be done". That is the exact climate that creates Stalin's Russia. That is the same climate that causes Iran's theocracy.
I had a friend on another board where I had been a mod, which is why I am not one today here, whom I lost as a friend because I refused to take sides. I did the ethical thing in stepping aside so that there would be no false accusation of playing favorites. In a civil society the reffs (government) SHOULD be as neutral as possible.
It ultimately amounts to, without personal stories from anyone of any label, past or present, that absolute black and white thinking is not a good solution.
One of those attitudes is that it is possible for ANY ONE OF US to be 100% consistent all the time. Humans, not any one of us, is capable of being absolutely free of some sort of hypocrisy or inconsistency. Humans are not perfect, none of us are.
We are all humans, all 7 billion of us, we as a species, did evolve to gravitate to like minded people. That social interaction is normal. But unfortunately it can also cause our species, far too often, to see dissent or people we don't like as a sub species. That is the downside of our evolution. It is what allows us to get violent with each other.
It is one thing to say "I don't like what this person does" or "I hate what that person does" OR "I don't like that person" . That is going to happen. And the other reality in our species is that there will ALWAYS be individuals who will never get along. So in this situation, the best you can do is live under laws that allow people to be themselves and merely simply demand the common ground both sides have in not physically harming someone in spite of what we say.
If the goal of humanity is pluralism then drawing lines in the sand cannot work. If our goal is to see ourselves as individuals, then we too, not just as atheists, but theists too should speak as individuals and don't speak for others under that label.
Guilt by association is what fascism does.
One of my favorite letters was Jefferson's letter to Adams about the state of "mudslinging" in politics. Jefferson basically, of course without cussing, but basically threw cold water on Adams face.
In a very real literal reality, the Declaration of Independence was blasphemy to the King and his position. They could have skipped that formal letter and simply wrote "fuck you" AND IT would have meant the same thing/ Jefferson reminded Adams that it was the King demanding absolutes, and the King was not protecting dissent. While they did not want to fight that war, I don't think any human in reality likes war, unless they are mentally ill. I think humans like the honor of protecting friends an loved ones and resources, though. So some people in that context like the motif of the military.
In any case, time after time after time after time in our courts, but especially with "The People vs Larry Flint" OUR COURT has rightfully said, that merely getting pissed off at someone, or being offended by what someone says is not enough to make a demand for their silence.
Now that was a Christian court that made that decision, and the issue wasn't even religion, it was about Larry Flint poking fun of Falwell's mother. The court said, while we may find that vile, the fact is that it does not meet the higher standard of a public figure. They said that no reasonable person would believe that was true, and parody for that matter, is protected.
WHY? Because if humans go around making demands that others not pick on them or offend them all the time FOR WHATEVER REASON, as an absolute, it does not take into account that powers shift long term. And the short term well intended idea of "cant we all just get along" DOES NOT take the long term reality that power changes, into account. So the people who think like this, ARE well intended, but can, without realizing it, hand a loaded gun(government) TO a future majority that might not agree with them.
The issue isn't "the only way to skin the cat is to get in their face" OR "the only way to skin the cat is to play nice all the time" The issue either way is not drawing lines in the sand not making absolute demands about the actions of others.
Otherwise the individual who does this is no better than the others in other groups whom they rightfully condemn.
You don't fight intolerance with intolerance. And life is NEVER, for anyone, ever simple black and white thinking.
I wrote this because I have seen, not just here, but people in my personal life, not even involving me, do this, I see it also in the news far too much. There ultimately is no "us vs them". There is only one species living on one planet. There are always going to be disagreements and even individuals no matter what, who wont get along with others. So one cant use ultimatums or threats to get people to do what one wants. One can control oneself, and one can try to appeal to others, but one cannot force other people to be a clone of themselves.
This also really cuts also to the core of my childhood too. My parents wrongly tried to push me in directions I didn't want to go( it wasn't that they were bad people, but they lacked the better psychological data we have now in accepting children as autonomous) AND I also suffered at the hands of peer pressure in trying to fit in and as a result I unknowingly sacrificed my dignity and threw myself at people who would never like me and even bullied me. The truth was that I only made it worse by trying to demand they not pick on me. I only made it worse when I didn't ignore them. It would have given me more power and control to either say "fuck you" BACK TO them or simply walk away and ignore them. The fact is I made the mistake of trying to control others instead of accepting that their baggage was theirs.
Part of me me now is a direct result of accepting and recognizing all the needless self inflicted trauma I caused myself.
I want atheists, and not just atheists, but all humans to be empowered to see themselves as autonomous. Something did not have the knowledge of when I was a kid which is why I let my parents baggage the bullies baggage and societies baggage get to me. I want people to be judged not as gangs merely based on being offened. The long standing religious disputes are based on the "sins of the father guilt by association" mistake.
The world does not need more lines in the sand. We simply need to see ourselves as humans first, the labels and disagreements have always been around and will always be around with different motifs and flavors some giving way to the future and some continuing. But what can minimize the harm to our species, or at least reduce it is the idea that we all want to be free from the physical harm of others. That is where the focus should be. Not our words, not our tactics. The mere knowledge that we all shit and pee and need food and shelter and have loved ones. That is where the common ground is, not the fact that we bitch or like to bitch.
My only issue with my detractors ANYWHERE, not just here, is not your tactic itself, but the attitude that "never under any situation" as an absolute. Whatever good intent someone might have with "never" gets lost in the real reality of situations and sheds of gray because life is complex and never simple one word or one way solutions. Most of the time they are a combo coming out of lots of sources.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline We've had a "buyers market" for employees for 15 or 20 years now. I remember when off-shoring jobs started being all the rage and that's been a large part of how employers gained so much power -- tell people they'll work for peanuts or their job gets sent to India or China. There are a lot of other tools large businesses have used to develop the Serf Class, but that's what they've done -- turned the average working in a Serf. Companies like Wal-Mart, which keeps as many employees as possible on "part-time" status, need to be whacked hard. It's also time the American worker rediscovered the labor union.
So someone ships a few jobs overseas. So what? The economy changes and eliminates jobs that are not needed. When the automobile was invented, it was really bad for the horseshoe industry. What our country needs in terms of workers changes with technology and time. Those who recognize such trends and are able to provide labor in an area where it is needed will find themselves making a lot of money. Those who cling to jobs that are no longer needed will find themselves struggling.
Now comparing Walmart to serfdom is at best hyperbole and at worst outright ignorance. A serf is someone who is forced to work a piece of land in exchange for food and shelter. They did not have any opportunity to ever own anything for themselves. In the good old USA anyone can own all of or part of a business. You can own the land, the building, the equipment. So if you are unhappy with the way any employer is treating you, you have the option to employ yourself. As someone who rarely got along with my employers, I can understand the frustration of working for idiots.
On unions, I would never joined one (I worked at a union shop for a bit but refused to join the union and was eventually fired for that refusal) but I don't have a problem with them other than when the government is used to give them special privileges. If employees want to collectively bargain, fine, but if another employee wants to bypass the group effort and bargain with the employer for their individual pay they should be allowed to.
I spent over a decade inside the Republican Party. I only left when the GOP became the POJ -- Party of Jesus. Funny thing is that I was still a Christian at the time, but they were so strongly tilted towards support for Evangelical Christians that I couldn't stay. That and they have been rabidly anti-Science. I mean, CRAZY RABID. When Reagan was in office, we all prided ourselves on learning Science so we could understand Star Wars and everything else he wanted to build. Now the GOP wants to outlaw Science. So, I've been voting for the Donkeys, more and more, for the past 15+ years.
But do you seriously believe the donkeys are a better option? I suspect that you probably have the same feeling in the voting booth I had for years, like you're deciding whether to shoot yourself in the left temple or the right temple. Vote third party, trust me you will feel a lot better about yourself after you vote instead of feeling like you need to take a sanitizing shower.
When I was an independent contractor in the 90's, my "total, all-inclusive, no taxes overlooked" rate was 55%. But using that is pretty dishonest -- you advocate small Federal government, like many of the things the Feds pay for are going to just not be done. Well, "those other things" aren't all that much.
And that's why I didn't use that number. My gross tax rate is already over 50%, my effective tax rate i.e. the amount of money taken compared to how much money I would have if I paid no taxes at all hovers around 30%. Last year, a little more, this year will probably be less. I believe that most of what the federal government does should be done by the state and local governments. Our system was intentionally designed with a weak federal government for a reason. We have moved far away from that, but I think we can and should move back in that direction.
There is a shitload of little things that add up, but you are right that the big things take the vast majority of resources. Right now those are Social Security, Medicare and the military. Social security and medicare should be voluntary and means tested. There is no reason for a millionaire to get either benefit. The 65+ age group is the wealthiest age group in the country, yet we shower them with benefits paid for by the poorest age groups because old farts vote. I understand many 65+ people have nothing and are unable to provide for themselves because they can't work anymore. We should help them. And only them. Make both programs into outright welfare so only those who need the money get it.
And I suspect we agree that the military can be cut dramatically.
Taxes were nowhere near that high under Clinton, and he ran a surplus.
See, this is where the brainwashing really shows up -- Bill Clinton raised taxes =and= ran a surplus =and= created something like 23 million jobs. I didn't vote for him the first go-round, but I sure as heck did the second time. When Bush #43 ran there was no way in Hell I was voting for him -- Bush #41 was a disaster as it was, and his son should go down in the history books as the worst presidents since Warren G Harding.
Spending was nowhere near as high either. Tax revenues have not fallen substantially since our fake surplus. I say fake because the surplus was created by using money that was supposed to be put in the social security trust fund. Now that money was never put there, we have to make it up in the future. Even a cursory look at the social security trustees report will show you the immense problem we have coming that would be much smaller if the trust fund ever got money instead of treasuries. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/
Regardless, the "massive" Bush tax cuts were $1.3 trillion....over ten fucking years. That is pocket change in modern political parlance. We are running over a trillion dollar deficit every year. The difference between now and Clinton years is much higher spending. Clinton's last budget in 2001 was $1.9 trillion, the budget for 2011 was $3.8 trillion. In ten years, we doubled spending. Are you getting twice as much benefit from government? GDP in 2001 was roughly $10.3 trillion in 2001 and $14.1 trillion in 2011, so to get a similar budget without cutting spending would require substantially higher taxes than we had during the Clinton administration.
My position on taxes is pretty straight forward. Our top priority has to be to get control of our debt. I understand in the real world that is going to require higher taxes than we currently have. However, I think everyone should be part of the solution. I see no reason why one person pays 30-40% of their income, while another pays none and another pays 15%. Everyone should pay the same rate. If I were dictator, spending would be cut to about 40% of what it is now to about $1.5 trillion. That would require everyone to pay an effective tax rate of roughly 20%.
Since I am not dictator, I am willing to support anyone who has a plan that keeps my effective taxes under 50% and gets our budget under control. So far, not one politician has even proposed an acceptable plan that balances the budget on either side of the aisle. Even Rand Paul's "extreme" plan doesn't cut spending all that much. It relies on future revenues increasing and growing government at a much slower rate. Fuck that. We don't know that future revenues are going to be there. They are relying on a 5% growth rate when our growth rate is closer to 1%. We are in a precarious position when such a pussy plan is considered too extreme to even consider.
There is an easy solution -- stop incenting businesses to export jobs by eliminating the deduction for off-shore worker wages. Raise the capital gains tax rate until companies start investing in capital again. When Reagan took office the tax policies =needed= to benefit the supply side. But 12 years of rule by the Bush Bozos seriously broke our economy, right along with rampant greed by the Upper Class. It's time for tax policies to favor the demand side, at the expense of the people who've concentrated so much wealth into so few hands. Sorry -- this country exists for all 300 million citizens, not the 400 richest people in the country. And if it takes taxing them to Hell and back, so be it.
I don't think the tax code should be used to provide incentive or disincentive for anyone to do or not do anything. When you start providing exceptions in the tax code, you get lobbyists seeking exceptions for their particular company. It is precisely this practice that leads to the politically connected paying far less in taxes than their competitors. Calculating taxes should be as easy as creating a profit/loss statement and paying a set percentage on the net gain. Whether it is through a flat tax or a consumption tax I am not really picky. Every American should pay the same percentage in taxes. Rich, poor or in the middle. No exceptions, no exemptions. Everyone needs to pay their fair share.
Right now, I see that I pay a higher effective tax rate than most anyone in the country. People who make more than me pay less, people who make less than me pay less- yet everyone tells me I am selfish and greedy and not paying my "fair share". It is especially irritating when someone tells me they pay a 3% effective tax rate in the same breath as telling me I am greedy for not wanting to pay more. I'll pay my 30% if everyone else does to. I suspect that if everyone paid 30% of their incomes, government programs would be far less popular. When people get all mad because Buffett pays 20% and wants him to pay more, my reaction is why don't I pay 20% too?
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
- Login to post comments
Offline No one is going to throw you in jail for not being able to pay your medical bills. You will be treated at any emergency room. Show me one case where an American was denied vital care or turned away from an emergency room because they couldn't afford it. I have asked in damn near every thread on the issue and not one person has even been able to provide an anecdote let alone actual proof.
It is class genocide to say that those who cannot afford it have to wait until it gets to that point. What you are saying is that only those who can afford a private doctor outside the emergency room should get that care. There is a reason it is called the "Emergency room".
Basically it is like segregation. Those who have can see a private doctor(best seat in the fancy joint) while the poor simply have to wait until something happens.(Sit in the back next to the window over looking the dumpster).
Basically what your are saying is "Last minute care is better than no care at all". No, if you have health care you don't have to wait until it gets to the emergency room. Lots of times when it gets to the point of the emergency room it is too late.
AND for someone who claims to care about cost, for the people who use the emergency room like a private doctors office out of all the people YOU should want affordable health care for the poor so they wouldn't drive up costs because the emergency room is the most expensive way to do it.
You are advocating class genocide. I know you think that is not what you are saying, but it is.
Instead of blaming the poor, why don't you talk to the doctors and EMTs and ask them if prior care and follow up care would reduce the use of the Emergency room.
Health care should not be based on money. It should be based on need of the patient and the compassion of our collective society. Not the profit margins of drug companies or heath insurance companies.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:No one is going to throw you in jail for not being able to pay your medical bills. You will be treated at any emergency room. Show me one case where an American was denied vital care or turned away from an emergency room because they couldn't afford it. I have asked in damn near every thread on the issue and not one person has even been able to provide an anecdote let alone actual proof.It is class genocide to say that those who cannot afford it have to wait until it gets to that point. What you are saying is that only those who can afford a private doctor outside the emergency room should get that care. There is a reason it is called the "Emergency room".
Basically it is like segregation. Those who have can see a private doctor(best seat in the fancy joint) while the poor simply have to wait until something happens.(Sit in the back next to the window over looking the dumpster).
Basically what your are saying is "Last minute care is better than no care at all". No, if you have health care you don't have to wait until it gets to the emergency room. Lots of times when it gets to the point of the emergency room it is too late.
AND for someone who claims to care about cost, for the people who use the emergency room like a private doctors office out of all the people YOU should want affordable health care for the poor so they wouldn't drive up costs because the emergency room is the most expensive way to do it.
You are advocating class genocide. I know you think that is not what you are saying, but it is.
Instead of blaming the poor, why don't you talk to the doctors and EMTs and ask them if prior care and follow up care would reduce the use of the Emergency room.
Health care should not be based on money. It should be based on need of the patient and the compassion of our collective society. Not the profit margins of drug companies or heath insurance companies.
Stop being dramatic. Genocide means people are dieing, show me where all these people are dieing in the streets because the evil doctors refuse to treat them. I haven't seen it here. When I went to Cuba, the country with a medical system you sing the praises of, I did see people left to die in the streets especially when you got outside of the major metro areas. But at least they didn't have to pay for it. Because it was free. Obviously, it is worth dieing to not have to pay for your own medical care.
The top causes of death in the US are all related to people being fat and eating too much. Diabetes, heart problems and lung issues related to smoking are the largest causes. People aren't dieing because they are too poor, they are dieing because they can afford too much food and smokes. (smoking is almost as expensive as health insurance, maybe more expensive for a lot of people) So don't give me that class warfare bullshit.
And yes, you should go to the doctor before an issue becomes serious enough for an emergency room visit. Most doctor office calls are $100 or less that is 2 fucking tanks of gas. Outside of serious emergency room type situations, most doctor visits will come out under $300-$400 including tests. Less than rent for most people. If your life isn't worth shelling out a months rent, you have issues. For those who are truly destitute, there are free clinics. Most major hospitals operate one. You can go without spending a dime. (Not to mention medicaid and programs operated by most states designed to pay for medical care of poor people.)
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
- Login to post comments
Offline Health care should not be based on money. It should be based on need of the patient and the compassion of our collective society. Not the profit margins of drug companies or heath insurance companies.
Once the decision has been made that poor people don't die because they are poor, all health care decisions should be based on total cost to society. As you pointed out, it costs the taxpayer less to provide earlier and more preventative care to the uninsured than to allow the uninsured to use the ER as the family doctor.
The conclusion I've reached is that the Medical Industrial Complex =wants= the ER used as the family doctor as a way to rip off the taxpayer, as well as the insured and cash-paying consumers. They are running a business. They can grow revenue and profit in a very small number of ways -- increased population or increased illness. A healthy consumer is =not= a profitable consumer, and a population that doesn't grow percentage points a year isn't very growth oriented.
If you look at the number of drugs that are designed solely to correct "life-style problems", I think what you'll see is that the MIC promotes sickness more than health, and high-cost care more than preventative care.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Health care should not be based on money. It should be based on need of the patient and the compassion of our collective society. Not the profit margins of drug companies or heath insurance companies.Once the decision has been made that poor people don't die because they are poor, all health care decisions should be based on total cost to society. As you pointed out, it costs the taxpayer less to provide earlier and more preventative care to the uninsured than to allow the uninsured to use the ER as the family doctor.
The conclusion I've reached is that the Medical Industrial Complex =wants= the ER used as the family doctor as a way to rip off the taxpayer, as well as the insured and cash-paying consumers. They are running a business. They can grow revenue and profit in a very small number of ways -- increased population or increased illness. A healthy consumer is =not= a profitable consumer, and a population that doesn't grow percentage points a year isn't very growth oriented.
If you look at the number of drugs that are designed solely to correct "life-style problems", I think what you'll see is that the MIC promotes sickness more than health, and high-cost care more than preventative care.
Thank you Furry. This should serve as an example of agreement beyond the deity claim. I'll reserve bitch slapping your invisible friend outside this post.
Beyond has a very simplistic view of life as far as money. "I saved it, I did it, why cant you?" As with anything in life life is never either or or black and white like even he wants to make it.
Beyond is so great at pontificating about numbers and stats and "responsibility" that he even overlooks his own compassion that I know he is capable of. He just cant seem to translate that to policy.
I really hope for his sake he never gets wiped out by a reality of some sort that can hit anyone. He is so insulated by his own success that he misses the fact that life is not a script.
I've battled it out time after time with him on this issue and I know deep down he wouldn't let someone rot if face to face with them. But he cant face that his political mentality hasn't worked and wont work.
I find it sad that even Cuba is getting it right on health care. I do not think that a open market should involve one's pay scale being an exclusion to care outside the emergency room.
Beyond has it falsely stuck in his head that because people like you and I see the gap in cost and see the fleecing of the taxpayer by the greed, that somehow we want to become Stalin's Russia or Cuba. No, what he fails to see is that if he wants to cut out the middle man(government) THEN do more directly for the worker in providing for them. Otherwise the cost will continue to go up because the worker will have no choice.
Health care is a human need and should never be based on the ability to pay. Using the ER as the private doctor is class genocide.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline The top causes of death in the US are all related to people being fat and eating too much.
They may be leading causes, but the TOP cause of death is traffic collision.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:They may be leading causes, but the TOP cause of death is traffic collision.The top causes of death in the US are all related to people being fat and eating too much.
I get tired of the fear mongering that can and does exist in all societies. The truth is that you are more likely to die from something non war and non criminal. Media is great at drumming up revenue by scaring the shit out of society needlessly.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Beyond has a very simplistic view of life as far as money. "I saved it, I did it, why cant you?" As with anything in life life is never either or or black and white like even he wants to make it.
Beyond is so great at pontificating about numbers and stats and "responsibility" that he even overlooks his own compassion that I know he is capable of. He just cant seem to translate that to policy.
I really hope for his sake he never gets wiped out by a reality of some sort that can hit anyone. He is so insulated by his own success that he misses the fact that life is not a script.
I did it, why can't you? I am nothing special, there is no reason why you, or anyone else, can't do what I did (or something similar).
I've battled it out time after time with him on this issue and I know deep down he wouldn't let someone rot if face to face with them. But he cant face that his political mentality hasn't worked and wont work.
I find it sad that even Cuba is getting it right on health care. I do not think that a open market should involve one's pay scale being an exclusion to care outside the emergency room.
Government is incapable of being compassionate. Government isn't human, it is a large organization that people go into to attain power. I find it pathetic that you hold Cuba up as a country "getting it right". If you ever get sick, I will pay for your boat trip to Cuba and you can experience their "wonderful" medical system first hand. They care well for the politically connected, but those without connections are left without even basic care. And unlike the US, they don't have the option to make more money (at least legally). Fucking toilet paper is a luxury that only the wealthy can pay for. You literally have to pay for toilet paper before using a public toilet. 1 peso per square. FFS, if you are going to crow about other countries medical systems being better than ours, at least choose a civilized one where you can form some type of reasonable argument.
No, what he fails to see is that if he wants to cut out the middle man(government) THEN do more directly for the worker in providing for them. Otherwise the cost will continue to go up because the worker will have no choice.
For the record, it is a really stupid decision to take any health insurance policy from an employer, no matter how good it is. It ties you to that particular employer, and can cause great trouble for you if you quit or lose your job. The financially intelligent decision is to ALWAYS purchase your insurance directly, even if it is a little more expensive up front. One of the quickest ways for people to save money on their healthcare would be to stop relying on their employer to provide it. Instead, they should negotiate higher wages without the benefit package and purchase the benefits appropriate for them privately. The same thing really goes for all other benefits. If you purchase your own, the product you get will generally be cheaper and more relevant to you than an employer trying to get a plan that works for everyone.
Would you expect your employer to buy everyone's food? So everyone got the same type and same amount of food regardless of what you liked to eat or how much you want? Or do you prefer getting paid and going to the grocery store to choose what and how much food you want? Why do you treat health insurance differently? People have different health situations and different needs. The same health insurance plan can never be the best fit for everyone. People with kids that go to the doctor a lot need different plans than a 23 year old who hasn't seen a doctors office in years. Someone with a lot of assets needs a different plan than someone with no assets. If you never travel, a plan that has a local network can save you a lot of money. If you travel a lot, you better have a plan that has good coverage regardless of where you go. People are different, with different needs. They need to go make choices for themselves rather than rely on their employer or the government to choose their health plan.
Health care is a human need and should never be based on the ability to pay. Using the ER as the private doctor is class genocide.
Who died?
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
- Login to post comments
Offline I find it sad that you are so wrapped up in labels such as political party and nationality that you cant see that even our enemies can get things right.
What the fuck makes you think I want Cuba's government? I said they get heath care right, and education right. And Canada and Germany and other European countries that are NOT run by dictators ALSO do the same thing with health care.
You are a broken record.
We can have what Cuba has without having their government. We can do a better job of covering health care. FYI EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON has gone on record about needing health care for all, EVERY SINGLE ONE.
This is not a republican issue, or a democrat issue. This is a national SHAME that a dictatorship does a better job taking care of it's citizens than we do.
Here is how we can fix things.
1. Attitude change by the CEOs and Share holders. If they cant put people first, then the government should enforce the anti-monopoly laws which as of now, are not being enforced, which ARE driving up prices and causing people to use the emergency room as their primary care. Break up the monopolies.
2. RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH, our tax rate between the end of WW2 up to the 80s when the deregulation started to destroy our economy allowing for the monopolies and outsourcing, was much higher and is what built the middle class.
3. A universal public option to compete with the private sector.
4. Incentives for businesses to pay higher wages and health care.
5. Get rid of policies that outsource jobs.
6. Invest in education and lower education costs.
Beyond, you have no case at all. We have done the "leave me alone" crap for 30 years and all it has done is allowed big money to put in policy makers that made this mess. The same attitudes that caused the great depression.
We were not a dictatorship after WW2 when we had higher taxes, and we will survive if the top pay more. I am tired of your crybaby attitude and your fear mongering that we will become a dictatorship.
NO ONE WANTS A FUCKING DICTATORSHIP. I DO WANT YOU TO STOP PEDDLING YOUR PATHETIC ANARCHIST ATTITUDE.
"Let them eat cake" is what you want. You want us to have the same slave hours as China and India, the same slave wages as China and India. You want our labor force to be nothing but numbers on a page, pieces of machinery that can be tossed aside and used up like trash for their sweat shop mentality.
THAT is where we are headed BECAUSE of your mentality.
More of the same will not work. It will just allow business to continue to pay off both parties to continue the extraction market they have created.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline I did it, why can't you? I am nothing special, there is no reason why you, or anyone else, can't do what I did (or something similar).
First off, you likely =are= very special -- the only one of the prime indicators of "privilege" you very likely lack are "Christian", but if I had to take a guess at your background, just from your writing, I would guess heterosexual, white, male and Christian. Even knowing you're an Atheist, I would guess that you grew up within the dominant religion for wherever you were raised. You likely also grew up in a middle to upper-middle class family, or neighborhood.
For the record, it is a really stupid decision to take any health insurance policy from an employer, no matter how good it is. It ties you to that particular employer, and can cause great trouble for you if you quit or lose your job. The financially intelligent decision is to ALWAYS purchase your insurance directly, even if it is a little more expensive up front. One of the quickest ways for people to save money on their healthcare would be to stop relying on their employer to provide it. Instead, they should negotiate higher wages without the benefit package and purchase the benefits appropriate for them privately. The same thing really goes for all other benefits. If you purchase your own, the product you get will generally be cheaper and more relevant to you than an employer trying to get a plan that works for everyone.
That's nonsense. Employer-provided insurance is a better value for all but the young who think they are going to be healthy forever. When I lost my job 3 years ago, I think the quotes I was getting were on the order of $750 per MONTH for INSURANCE. And I say "on the order of" because they might have been $740 or $760, but they weren't $300. That's $9,000 per YEAR. I've not spent $9,000 PER YEAR on medical expenses since my son was born, and didn't spend $9,000 per year any year prior. Last Fall ('10), when my business slacked off, I took a temp job that offered insurance. The premiums were $170 or so per month, but the policy had this very interesting clause -- the maximum benefit amount was limited to ... the maximum annual premium! In other words, it wasn't even insurance. I looked at the annual benefit limit and realized the relationship only because I'm fast with math, but that's what it was.
Who died?
That's a fallacy. Just because neither Brian nor I can say "Bill Jones died yesterday because you're a greedy f*ck", doesn't mean the underclass isn't being killed by rampant greed.
What is undeniable is that social class and life expectancy, just as that relates to medical care, correlate. When you read studies, and the political commentary that comes from your greedy f*ck buddies, what comes out is "well, they die because they have untreated diseases". No duh, moron -- they die because they are given a choice between eating and having some disease =or= starving and/or living on the street and buying some over-priced medication which will be dumped the month after the patent expires so they can come out with a new one and jack up the price on it.
You live in fantasy world in which everyone can go out and be successful just because you were. In a society in which the greedy export jobs to a country that is willing to destroy the environment, and enslave their people, the only way some people can be "successful" is to agree to live in a polluted environment and become slaves to corporate greed.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline Furry, he'd have to tell you about his upbringing. I don't think he has ever talked at length about his child hood.
But it is not his label or what he was, I think this mentality has more to do with type of personality. Human behavior and personality types range.
He would have loved my parents. Both my mom and dad were "sink or swim" type authoritarians, not in any religious sense but "buck up, be a man". I think he buys into that script as if life is a script. But the reality is it did not work and it caused more conflict between us because they tried to apply a blanket solution to me instead of recognizing that I was an individual.
I think he projects those absolute scripts on economics as well. I think he has a hard time seeing the shades of gray in life on that scale.
The fact is life is never a script and for him to apply simplistic notions on a complex society is absurd. I've tried to argue for that smaller government mentality he has, but he thinks that should be a "no strings attached" attitude. He doesn't want to admit that what he advocates is class genocide and economic slavery. I know in reality if it got that bad he'd wake up. I don't think he is that heartless, I don't think most in America are.
Higher taxes does not have to go in combo with larger government. Those taxes could go to private contractors to fix transportation, bridges, schools, faster rail systems. Europe, Japan and even China are kicking our asses on that stuff. It is what built the Hoover Dam, I doubt you'd get anyone, including business owners to demand it be torn down because government built it from tax payers money.
The only argument he makes that I agree with is more efficient government. But that has to come in combo with self awareness which big business does not currently have. It has to be a two way street.
But the two biggest things we are falling behind on are health care and education. Year after year, because of the "sink or swim" simplistic view of economics, that combo is making it harder and harder for people to make ends meet.
The lowest paid in Europe have it far better. I doubt you can get any of those people to say they are lazy or mooching off government. But their businesses over there ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES and because they pay higher taxes and pay for their heath care and have cheaper education, they have less of a pay gap an the people at the lower end depend on government LESS, which is what he says his goal is.
I try to give him a way to do that but because of his script thinking he cant get his head past the fact that we cant continue to have the health care costs and pay gap we do.
I think it is simply the script of "be a man, you are a loser if you don't have what I have by my age". Lots of people buy that, not just him.
I have a job I love. I didn't go up to my boss and say "cut back my hours please. I want to mooch of government just to piss Beyond off". But that is what he falsely thinks. The blame always gets dumped on the middle class and working poor and I am fucking tired of it.
I work with the middle class and working poor and not one of them are lazy like Beyond's ilk has falsely sold him. They just want to feed themselves and have the ability to make ends meet. His solution is to drive down their wages and makes slaves out of them.
It's his attitude, not his personal desires. I do think maybe from a biological sense it is literally a testosterone thing. I think men who have more testosterone assert this personality on average more. I didn't have that dna in me so I developed more of a mix of nature/nurture.
We do need private business and risk takers. That gets lost on Beyond. I think it is totally foreign to him that I can value private business. I do, despite what he might think. I just don't like the pay gap and abuse of power because of money.
What he wont get away with is trying to pretend that his solution will work under our current climate. Under other conditions where business actually cared, he could make a case. But the way things are now, the only thing that will work is for the working class to stand up to the abuse of power.
His idea by themselves are not bad. But cannot be applied and run and work with the ATTITUDE that money and big business has right now. It can only work when the abuse stops, and I do not see that happening under our current climate.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Beyond Saving wrote:I did it, why can't you? I am nothing special, there is no reason why you, or anyone else, can't do what I did (or something similar).
First off, you likely =are= very special -- the only one of the prime indicators of "privilege" you very likely lack are "Christian", but if I had to take a guess at your background, just from your writing, I would guess heterosexual, white, male and Christian. Even knowing you're an Atheist, I would guess that you grew up within the dominant religion for wherever you were raised. You likely also grew up in a middle to upper-middle class family, or neighborhood.
I am white and male which doesn't make me very special. White males make up a large portion of the population. I was raised in a religiously neutral home in a town full of fundies. My family made the transition from dirt broke poor when I was a kid, we used apple crates as chairs and I know my parents were constantly worried about food, was middle classish by the time I was 14 and dropped out of school and when I was 16 my father was making around 100k. The whole time we lived in a rather poor rural town although when I was 16 my parents started building a very nice house.
When I was 18 I got in a large fight with my father and left. Had nothing to do with them for several years over the course of which I spent some time in the military, went to college, dropped out of college, lost all the money I had trying to run a recording studio, spent some time broke and homeless saved money and started investing, got married, worked my ass off for a few years living in the worst part of Columbus, investments started paying off, moved out of the ghetto into suburbia, hated it, got divorced, bought a rural house last year. Live comfortably but modestly on about 25% of my current income.
There you go, my life in a nutshell. So what prevents someone else from doing something similar? Or at least trying? It is one thing to try to make it and fail. That happens. But if you never even try, I don't think you have any basis to bitch about those who did try and did succeed. You can never guarantee success, but you can guarantee that you will not succeed if you don't try. The Redskins might lose a lot but at least they show up on the field and try every week. Most Americans never try, so they can't be surprised when they don't become capitalists.
That's nonsense. Employer-provided insurance is a better value for all but the young who think they are going to be healthy forever. When I lost my job 3 years ago, I think the quotes I was getting were on the order of $750 per MONTH for INSURANCE. And I say "on the order of" because they might have been $740 or $760, but they weren't $300. That's $9,000 per YEAR. I've not spent $9,000 PER YEAR on medical expenses since my son was born, and didn't spend $9,000 per year any year prior. Last Fall ('10), when my business slacked off, I took a temp job that offered insurance. The premiums were $170 or so per month, but the policy had this very interesting clause -- the maximum benefit amount was limited to ... the maximum annual premium! In other words, it wasn't even insurance. I looked at the annual benefit limit and realized the relationship only because I'm fast with math, but that's what it was.
Exactly my point. You got your plan through your employer and got fucked over when you left. Obviously, it was not a good deal for you. You would have been far better off purchasing a high deductible plan with a health savings account. And yes, you should get these plans when you are young and healthy. The more time you spend with your employer the older you will be when you leave, and the more likely you are to have health problems that will make insurance expensive or completely unavailable. Therefore, the smart thing to do is to purchase an individual plan when you are relatively healthy and young. Obviously, if you have severe health issues, that might not be a viable option. Insurance is for covering future health issues, not existing problems and for those with problems and no insurance, group policies through an employer might be a viable option.
That's a fallacy. Just because neither Brian nor I can say "Bill Jones died yesterday because you're a greedy f*ck", doesn't mean the underclass isn't being killed by rampant greed.
What is undeniable is that social class and life expectancy, just as that relates to medical care, correlate. When you read studies, and the political commentary that comes from your greedy f*ck buddies, what comes out is "well, they die because they have untreated diseases". No duh, moron -- they die because they are given a choice between eating and having some disease =or= starving and/or living on the street and buying some over-priced medication which will be dumped the month after the patent expires so they can come out with a new one and jack up the price on it.
You live in fantasy world in which everyone can go out and be successful just because you were. In a society in which the greedy export jobs to a country that is willing to destroy the environment, and enslave their people, the only way some people can be "successful" is to agree to live in a polluted environment and become slaves to corporate greed.
Exactly what prevents you, or anyone else, from making $x, where x is whatever your goal is?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline Exactly what prevents you, or anyone else, from making $x, where x is whatever your goal is?
God damn it Beyond, why do you think everyone wants money? We need money because currently that is what humans default to. It fucking causes as many problems as it solves. Our current mess was not caused by the middle class or working poor.
You still don't get it and I doubt you ever will.
"You can make it you try" Your self help guru utopia bullshit is just that. People SHOULD be good and do the best at whatever they do and people should be happy with the work they do. But not all people will be business owners, that is physically impossible. And most are lucky, however fewer and fewer are lucky enough to reach the middle class. And there will always be people who never make it out of poverty.
BUT again, where Canada and Europe get it right where you still seem to have your head up your ass, is that THEY do not have the pay gap or health care cost problems we do.
You treat poverty as if it is a crime and you blame anyone who doesn't reach your status. THAT is a selfish attitude and self centered. YOU did not do all the work yourself. No one ever can do anything by themselves EVER. It takes everyone to run a business from the top to the bottom. You simply and falsely think you are the only one who is important. This is the very climate that has set up the corruption that has led to this mess.
Keep it up Beyond, if you get what you want, we WILL end up looking like India and China. And if we really work hard at what you want, we might even get as low as Somalia. Goody goody, slave hours and slave wages. Sounds just peachy.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Exactly what prevents you, or anyone else, from making $x, where x is whatever your goal is?
God damn it Beyond, why do you think everyone wants money? We need money because currently that is what humans default to. It fucking causes as many problems as it solves. Our current mess was not caused by the middle class or working poor.
You still don't get it and I doubt you ever will.
"You can make it you try" Your self help guru utopia bullshit is just that. People SHOULD be good and do the best at whatever they do and people should be happy with the work they do. But not all people will be business owners, that is physically impossible. And most are lucky, however fewer and fewer are lucky enough to reach the middle class. And there will always be people who never make it out of poverty.
BUT again, where Canada and Europe get it right where you still seem to have your head up your ass, is that THEY do not have the pay gap or health care cost problems we do.
You treat poverty as if it is a crime and you blame anyone who doesn't reach your status. THAT is a selfish attitude and self centered. YOU did not do all the work yourself. No one ever can do anything by themselves EVER. It takes everyone to run a business from the top to the bottom. You simply and falsely think you are the only one who is important. This is the very climate that has set up the corruption that has led to this mess.
Keep it up Beyond, if you get what you want, we WILL end up looking like India and China. And if we really work hard at what you want, we might even get as low as Somalia. Goody goody, slave hours and slave wages. Sounds just peachy.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline I am white and male which doesn't make me very special. White males make up a large portion of the population. I was raised in a religiously neutral home in a town full of fundies. My family made the transition from dirt broke poor when I was a kid, we used apple crates as chairs and I know my parents were constantly worried about food, was middle classish by the time I was 14 and dropped out of school and when I was 16 my father was making around 100k. The whole time we lived in a rather poor rural town although when I was 16 my parents started building a very nice house.
Which is why it words always fail me when people tell stories like this and STILL end up lacking compassion for the very places they came from and were in themselves.
Your family was lucky, you are lucky. It took more than just their own work. It took others to be involved in them getting where they were at. It takes the work of your employees to keep you where you are at and to keep you growing if that is your goal.
You keep making it all about the self and the reality is NO ONE NO ONE ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ever does anything on a business level, be it the owner or the employee, by themselves. EVER! That is the part you keep missing, which is why you cannot understand how lucky your family was and you are now.
Which is why you have your self centered attitude of "me me me me me me".
I really hope you do not get what you want, because if you did our economy would eventually get to you as well and then who would you blame? When there is no middle class and the poor are making 25 cents a day, who will you blame then?
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Beyond Saving wrote:Exactly what prevents you, or anyone else, from making $x, where x is whatever your goal is?
God damn it Beyond, why do you think everyone wants money? We need money because currently that is what humans default to. It fucking causes as many problems as it solves. Our current mess was not caused by the middle class or working poor.
You still don't get it and I doubt you ever will.
"You can make it you try" Your self help guru utopia bullshit is just that. People SHOULD be good and do the best at whatever they do and people should be happy with the work they do. But not all people will be business owners, that is physically impossible. And most are lucky, however fewer and fewer are lucky enough to reach the middle class. And there will always be people who never make it out of poverty.
Yes, some people will never make it out of poverty. Some because they make the conscious choice to such as my brother who chose to give up his career to be a minister. Too many out of sheer ignorance and the attitude that wealth comes from luck. They are told they can't succeed so they don't try. You are right on one thing, it is about attitude. Even when I was dead ass broke I wasn't "poor" in attitude, I was simply broke. I didn't get angry at my employers, it never crossed my mind that I couldn't make more money. I set my goals and pursued them. Some I failed, others I succeeded well beyond what I initially thought.
Why is it physically impossible for everyone to own part of a business? All you have to do is buy in to one. There is no reason you can't other than making the decision to put your money elsewhere. Many Americans choose to buy smart phones, cable tv, cars and big houses instead of investing in a business. Their choice, I don't really care until that person bitches about how "lucky" I am when I gave up having nice things so I could invest.
BUT again, where Canada and Europe get it right where you still seem to have your head up your ass, is that THEY do not have the pay gap or health care cost problems we do.
And they don't have nearly the wealth we have either. Although in many ways, Canada's economy is much more free and capitalist than ours. Healthcare is related to economic freedom, but not the sole determinate. And Europe? Don't make me laugh, they are about to be the cause of what might be the largest recession since the invention of modern currency. The shit is hitting the fan over there, and it isn't going to be pretty. Hardly an example to follow.
You treat poverty as if it is a crime and you blame anyone who doesn't reach your status. THAT is a selfish attitude and self centered. YOU did not do all the work yourself. No one ever can do anything by themselves EVER. It takes everyone to run a business from the top to the bottom. You simply and falsely think you are the only one who is important. This is the very climate that has set up the corruption that has led to this mess.
Where did I call it a crime? You can be poor all you want, I don't give a shit. When I was poor, I decided I didn't like it. So I found ways to make more money. There are certain things you can do to make money. When you don't do those things, you can't be surprised that you have little money. Yeah, you need other people, so what? That doesn't change the fact that certain decisions will lead you to economic success while others will lead you to being broke.
Which is why it words always fail me when people tell stories like this and STILL end up lacking compassion for the very places they came from and were in themselves.
Because I was there and I got my ass out of it, so I know a little about what it takes. I saw people who never tried. I had people tell me I was delusional when I told them my plans. I heard them bitch about how "lucky" the rich were while they did nothing to change their lifestyle. I had the advantage of knowing a lot of successful people when I was in my teens, so I knew that the mindset you find in the ghetto doesn't lead to financial success. I have a lot of compassion for people in those places. That is why I am here, it pisses me off that so many people are beaten down and told they can't succeed to the point it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sure, shit happens. Some people do have it harder than others. But the vast majority of obstacles for most people is themselves. I know a guy who is a paraplegic, he hunts. By himself. Rolls through the woods, sets up his stand, shoots a deer. It is fucking amazing. How many people in that situation would simply give up hunting? Maybe feel sorry for themselves and sit around wishing they could hunt again? Is it a lot easier for me to go shoot a deer? Yes. But despite the incredible obstacle put in front of him by sheer bad luck, my friend hunts every year and often harvests more deer than I do. I would like to think that if I was in the same position, I would do the same. But honestly, before I met him, I might not have.
Yeah, I'm a white male. Yes, I understand racism, sexism and bigotry exist. I understand that could make it a lot harder in some ways. But is it impossible to overcome those obstacles? Obviously not. There are many minorities who have overcome those obstacles.
Your family was lucky, you are lucky. It took more than just their own work. It took others to be involved in them getting where they were at. It takes the work of your employees to keep you where you are at and to keep you growing if that is your goal.
Well yeah I need my employees. That is why I pay them. I don't pay for things I don't need. That's one of the reasons I got "lucky", because I decided to only spend money on what I need. I am well aware of what needs to be done to attain my goals and I do them which is why it is likely that I will continue to achieve my goals. Most people don't seem to have goals or really know what things to do to achieve them, which is why they never do.
You keep making it all about the self and the reality is NO ONE NO ONE ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ever does anything on a business level, be it the owner or the employee, by themselves. EVER! That is the part you keep missing, which is why you cannot understand how lucky your family was and you are now.
Where did I ever say other people weren't needed? Some people are easily replaced, others I am willing to pay a lot of money to keep because they can't be replaced. It is the decisions of which people to put your money into that leads to success. I've made some bad choices in that regard from time to time, and have lost money. I learned, and put my money with people more trustworthy. If you do certain things your chances of financial success increase dramatically. If you do other things you are guaranteed not to make a lot of money.
Your mistake is believing it is luck. It isn't. It is calculated risk taking. The great thing is that you have more than one shot. If you fail at first, there is nothing stopping you from trying again. (except you) Failure is always an option, but it isn't final. If you fail, try again. If you have nothing to start with, you have nothing to lose.
The ghetto mentality prevents a lot of people from trying. They think they have to go work for someone else, they think it is impossible to improve their financial position, so they don't try. They are told their whole lives that they can't succeed because of greed or racism or luck. They can succeed, but they have to try. Our culture increasingly encourages them not to try which only perpetuates poverty. I will do my part to lift as many people out of poverty as I can. It won't make much difference in the large scale, but if I can inspire even one person to improve their lot in life, I am satisfied.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline The ghetto mentality
The only one between the two of us who has a "ghetto mentality" is you.
Thats how drug dealers think. That is how gang members think. As long as they get what they want, fuck everyone else.
If "every man for themselves" is your mentality your mindset fits that "ghetto mentality", not mine.
Again, Germany has janitors and dish washers too. But they have less of a pay gap and far better education and less of a crime rate. WHY? Because their government and their top money makers care and build and the workers are treated as important, not trash like you treat the poor.
What scares you? That the middle class and working poor are finally saying enough? Are you scared that if more people get educations you wont be able to treat them like shit?
YOU are the problem, not the middle class and poor. YOU and your selfish attitude that as long as you make money you have no duty or loyalty to the community you live in. THAT is what creates ghettos.
Keep it up, maybe we can have shanty towns and mountains covered in trash just like Tijuana. It would be fantastic if the entire nation looked like that.
YOU are the one setting the standards low and you are too deluded to realize it. You are merely perpetuating the global economic race to the bottom.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline You two spend a lot of time talking past each other. 
Beyond, a lot of what you're saying is what lead me to the conclusion that socialism is a superior system. The ghetto mentality you talk about is not going to change in a capitalilst society where the richest people have a vested interest in keeping the poorest poor, and do everything they can to promote such self defeating ideas and feelings. Nor will it change when the rich demand the majority of income from something they invested in, leaving the creators with little.
You can't argue competition opens the market, because many industries are locked up so tightly by monopolies (not all of which are corporate) that you can't gain entry without going through certain channels that may or may not decide to work with you (and are under no obligation to do so regardless of your talents and skills). The entire movie industry is a perfect example. You can't just decide to act, every actor/actress has to be in the actors guild, or the film gets shut out of theatres and general circulation, if it even survives.
But in a system where the default is to promote yourself, to make yourself valuable to society at large, and get a better life out of the process, and there are no rich people attempting to get richer at any cost; all the motivation is present from the bottom up, and there's no reason to prevent people from bettering themselves.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline You two spend a lot of time talking past each other.
Beyond, a lot of what you're saying is what lead me to the conclusion that socialism is a superior system. The ghetto mentality you talk about is not going to change in a capitalilst society where the richest people have a vested interest in keeping the poorest poor, and do everything they can to promote such self defeating ideas and feelings. Nor will it change when the rich demand the majority of income from something they invested in, leaving the creators with little.
You can't argue competition opens the market, because many industries are locked up so tightly by monopolies (not all of which are corporate) that you can't gain entry without going through certain channels that may or may not decide to work with you (and are under no obligation to do so regardless of your talents and skills). The entire movie industry is a perfect example. You can't just decide to act, every actor/actress has to be in the actors guild, or the film gets shut out of theatres and general circulation, if it even survives.
But in a system where the default is to promote yourself, to make yourself valuable to society at large, and get a better life out of the process, and there are no rich people attempting to get richer at any cost; all the motivation is present from the bottom up, and there's no reason to prevent people from bettering themselves.
HOLD ON NOW, you are doing exactly what I don't like about some in either camp.
When you say "socialist" he gets an image of a dictatorship like Cuba or China. I am not for those systems. I am for an open market. Now if that is not what you advocate then the word "socialism" has a different context than popular definition.
NOW HAVING SAID THAT, I really get tired of saying "capitalism" IS NOT a form of government. Saudi Arabia's royal family capitalizes off the sale of oil. Capitalism does not require equality via constitutional protection. All "capitalize" means is to make money. It says nothing about how that money is made.
FYI we already have socialism. Privatized profits and socialized loses. We need to get away from corporate welfare.
The solution is not to make it a free for all or create a total Nanny state.
We DO need higher taxes on the rich. WE at the same time CAN have less government like he wants by having more self introspection and awareness of the pay gap and cost of living gap.
The point is life is not either or and in a complex society with many different needs you cannot make blanket solutions to fit the needs of all.
I value his right to own a private business. But we do need the monopolies broken on cost and we do need to get big money out of the politics of both parties.
I simply think if he wants the middle man cut out(government) AND he wants more people off of the government dime. Cheaper or free higher education would educate more people. If he paid higher salaries and took a cut in his profits and paid for health care under a system that had a private sector that was not simply padding profits through the denial of services, he would have less people using the most expensive emergency room as their primary care.
You cannot have everything privatized with no government. Nor should everything be all government run. You need a combo of both and checks and balances on both to insure a monopoly of power does not arise via government OR private sector.
Our middle class was not created under socialism after WW2. BUT it was created by the majority of society accepting that you could not simply leave people to rot. The open market existed then and it survived high taxes and the government most certainly was not as big. So it is not a matter of either or. It is an attitude change.
Life is not static nor should one solution to one issue be used for all issues and room for adjustment must be taken into account.
Monopolies and abuse of power happen both in government and in the private sector. So simply saying that "socialism" will fix everything says nothing. That idea can be abused and monopolized and corrupted as easily as the private sector. Stalin was a perfect example of the monopoly of the idea of "socialism".
SO the real issue is balance and oversight and the ability to break a monopoly. China has a political monopoly. Cuba has a political monopoly. Here the monopoly is one class. ALL are monopolies.
Every venture, be it a government or a private business is not run by an idea, but by humans implementing those ideas. Any human project private or government can be corrupted because humans can and do seek power.
China is kicking ass at capitalism. But they cheat doing it fuck over the rest of the world in undermining the currency in the west and trade policies AND THEY do it off the backs of slave wages and slave labor. And on top of that their "socialism" does not allow room for political dissent. So no thank you. That is not a price of success I would be willing to pay.
BUT, Beyond's wild west mentality is the opposite extreme. I doubt very seriously he would want to live during the great depression or during the years prior where there was no middle class at all and just rich and extremely poor.
We need the private sector. We need the government. All I see that needs to be fixed are the monopoly of corporate power on politics and the pay gap and health care costs. Fix that and things will get better. But no, I do not want to throw out our open market.
Free education and free health care could very easily be paid for by taxing the top without mushrooming government. AGAIN, we did not have socialism after WW2 we had much higher taxes and cheaper education almost free, and the pay gap was nowhere near as lopsided as it is today.
Beyond tries to falsely claim "I cant" when what he really should say is "I don't want to".
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Your mistake is believing it is luck. It isn't.
BULLSHIT,
Your mistake is that black and white thinking. Nothing, not even in evolution itself, is either just choices or just luck, but a COMBO.
It were only about you and only about the choices you made then you wouldn't need anyone to do anything for you. You wouldn't need employees at all.
The middle class and working poor do the bulk of the physical work. When they get affected eventually it affects you. WE are dependent collectively as a society on each other, not as individuals, but as a society. You cannot keep fucking over the middle and poor. Keep doing that and you will have no one to buy what you are selling.
Our economy sucks because of the rich, not the poor not the middle class. Our economy sucks because it is not an economy that builds, it is an economy that extracts. If the middle and poor could pay their bills and make ends meet they would not be protesting.
What you will not get away with anymore is falsely accusing people of being lazy nor are you going to continue to dump all the blame on the bottom two classes. We've had enough of that bullshit lie and you are now seeing all over the world the reaction to money monopolies on the global economy.
Sorry daddy warbucks, but there ARE plenty of business owners and plenty of rich people who don't suffer your delusion. Unfortunately they have not had the majority in that class to have enough influence to stop the abuse.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline When you say "socialist" he gets an image of a dictatorship like Cuba or China.
Neither of them are socialist countries. Pure socialism is as impossible as pure capitalism for society to exist and function productively and adaptively. And they certainly don't follow the fundamental philosophy of socialism as equal opportunity, rights, and standard of living, etc. Just not having a democracy refutes claims of socialism, not to mention human rights abuses and oppression.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline You two spend a lot of time talking past each other.
Beyond, a lot of what you're saying is what lead me to the conclusion that socialism is a superior system. The ghetto mentality you talk about is not going to change in a capitalilst society where the richest people have a vested interest in keeping the poorest poor, and do everything they can to promote such self defeating ideas and feelings. Nor will it change when the rich demand the majority of income from something they invested in, leaving the creators with little.
You can't argue competition opens the market, because many industries are locked up so tightly by monopolies (not all of which are corporate) that you can't gain entry without going through certain channels that may or may not decide to work with you (and are under no obligation to do so regardless of your talents and skills). The entire movie industry is a perfect example. You can't just decide to act, every actor/actress has to be in the actors guild, or the film gets shut out of theatres and general circulation, if it even survives.
You can always get rid of the actors guild. Unions are by their nature anti-competitive, anti-free market. If your sole goal were to maximize competition, outlawing unions would be a good step. (Calm down Brian, my sole goal is not to maximize competition) But beyond that, there is nothing stopping you from creating an independent film that uses non-union labor. A few have been incredibly successful. Most fail because of poor quality. Imagine that, people who make tv shows/movies every day are better than those who don't.
So where else is this mythical "monopoly"? In what field is it impossible for you to provide your product/service if you are able to get the funding and have the skills?
But in a system where the default is to promote yourself, to make yourself valuable to society at large, and get a better life out of the process, and there are no rich people attempting to get richer at any cost; all the motivation is present from the bottom up, and there's no reason to prevent people from bettering themselves.
And how do you motivate people to do things for society at large? Seems to me that personal greed is far more motivating for most people than improving society in general. You yourself expressed similar sentiment in the bullying thread when you stated you didn't care about laws as far as self defense. Obviously, you care more about protecting yourself than for the laws designed to protect society at large.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline When you say "socialist" he gets an image of a dictatorship like Cuba or China. I am not for those systems. I am for an open market. Now if that is not what you advocate then the word "socialism" has a different context than popular definition.
I understand the definition of socialism quite well thank you.
NOW HAVING SAID THAT, I really get tired of saying "capitalism" IS NOT a form of government. Saudi Arabia's royal family capitalizes off the sale of oil. Capitalism does not require equality via constitutional protection. All "capitalize" means is to make money. It says nothing about how that money is made.
Capitalism is not the same as "capitalize". Capitalism is by definition an economic system where trade and industry are controlled by private owners. A system where the government/dictator/royalty/aristocracy owns the significant portion of trade and industry is by definition, not capitalism. The only thing required to have capitalism is for the government to recognize/protect the individual right to own property.
This is opposed to feudalism where government appointed aristocrats owned the land, mercantilism where certain companies were given government sponsored monopolies, socialism where ownership is through coops/the state, communism where there is no state but the means of production is owned by the "public", fascism where there are private owners but they have no real control because an authoritarian state controls everything.
FYI we already have socialism. Privatized profits and socialized loses. We need to get away from corporate welfare.
No one I voted for supports corporate welfare. You can't honestly say the same.
We DO need higher taxes on the rich. WE at the same time CAN have less government like he wants by having more self introspection and awareness of the pay gap and cost of living gap.
Can you explain to me why the pay gap is a problem? What about the tax gap? I think that problem needs to be fixed.
The point is life is not either or and in a complex society with many different needs you cannot make blanket solutions to fit the needs of all.
Then why are you always trying to do so?
I value his right to own a private business. But we do need the monopolies broken on cost and we do need to get big money out of the politics of both parties.
What monopoly? Name one. What is the name of the company and the field it has a monopoly over?
You cannot have everything privatized with no government. Nor should everything be all government run. You need a combo of both and checks and balances on both to insure a monopoly of power does not arise via government OR private sector.
Why not?
Our middle class was not created under socialism after WW2. BUT it was created by the majority of society accepting that you could not simply leave people to rot. The open market existed then and it survived high taxes and the government most certainly was not as big. So it is not a matter of either or. It is an attitude change.
The middle class existed long before WWII. The middle class existed long before the existence of our country. Really, from an economic point of view "middle class" is meaningless. It makes far more sense to discuss things in terms of capitalist (those who own the means of production and might or might not work), wage earners (those who work for a paycheck but don't own anything) and moochers (those who don't participate in the economy outside of consuming). It is perfectly possible to be part of the capitalist class and make little to no income or be part of the wage earners class and make millions. Or with the right political connections, to be part of the moocher class and make millions.
Life is not static nor should one solution to one issue be used for all issues and room for adjustment must be taken into account.
That is why laissez-faire capitalism is so great, no one tries to create one solution for all issues. Every business is free to find solutions any way they desire and those that create popular solutions make the most money, while others can still thrive with solutions that apply to smaller groups of individuals. Obamacare is an example of the government trying to find a blanket solution that fulfills everyone's healthcare needs. Socialism in general is an attempt to fill everyone's needs the same way. It's main failing is that different people have different needs/desires. Has it occurred to you that I don't need or want the same health insurance plan you do? Yet now I will have to buy the same plan, or break the law.
Monopolies and abuse of power happen both in government and in the private sector. So simply saying that "socialism" will fix everything says nothing. That idea can be abused and monopolized and corrupted as easily as the private sector. Stalin was a perfect example of the monopoly of the idea of "socialism".
Name one private sector monopoly.
SO the real issue is balance and oversight and the ability to break a monopoly. China has a political monopoly. Cuba has a political monopoly. Here the monopoly is one class. ALL are monopolies.
Well since you define class by income, by definition everyone who has a certain income level becomes part of that class. So of course that class has a monopoly on high incomes. You make it impossible by definition for anyone to have a high income and not be part of that class. The top 1% will always include everyone in the top 1% and exclude everyone else. No matter what the pay gap is and regardless of whether or not the actual names of people in the top 1% changes.
Every venture, be it a government or a private business is not run by an idea, but by humans implementing those ideas. Any human project private or government can be corrupted because humans can and do seek power.
Every venture, be it a government or a private business is created by an idea. Without the idea, it never would have come into existence in the first place. Any particular human involved can be replaced. If the idea is replaced, the business is fundamentally different. (Which is sometimes for better sometimes for worse depending on the quality of the idea). A good idea is worth far more than any amount of physical labor. A robot can do labor without any ideas, but a robot doesn't produce anything of worth without being guided by the idea of the creator/programmer.
BUT, Beyond's wild west mentality is the opposite extreme. I doubt very seriously he would want to live during the great depression or during the years prior where there was no middle class at all and just rich and extremely poor.
Go read a fucking history book. Your assertion that the middle class is somehow a new creation is absurd.
Free education and free health care could very easily be paid for by taxing the top without mushrooming government. AGAIN, we did not have socialism after WW2 we had much higher taxes and cheaper education almost free, and the pay gap was nowhere near as lopsided as it is today.
Really? Where is the money going to come from? Exactly whom are you going to tax and by how much? Because right now you could seize 100% of the income of the top 1% and not have enough money to pay for our current expenses. (The top 1% made 1.3 trillion) Our current budget is $3.8 trillion. It is safe to say that universal free medical care would add at least another trillion (probably substantially more, medicare alone is $600 billion/year). So you have to come up with $4.8 trillion or substantially cut other government programs. The top 5% earns $2.5 trillion, so if you seize 100% there you are closer. The top 10% earns $3.4 trillion. The top 25% earns $5.2 trillion. So I guess there is your answer. Simply seize 100% from everyone earning more than $66000 and you can "easily" pay for free healthcare.
Wanting free healthcare is all well and good. But you have to find some sensible way to pay for it. Simply "tax the rich" isn't enough because there isn't enough money there. And obviously, if you taxed it at 100% most people wouldn't earn that much money legally. The total income of the country is only $7.8 trillion if you are spending $4.8 trillion a year, you would have to tax everyone at an average rate of 60% not just the rich. So what would you do? Tax the rich 100%? Spread the burden to everyone? Or radically cut government in other areas? Which areas? Simply stating that it is "easy" doesn't make it so. The bitch about numbers is they are based in reality, even though our government is trying to pretend they are not.
Beyond tries to falsely claim "I cant" when what he really should say is "I don't want to".
I never said I can't. I said I won't.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline Decided to move this response to
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/30806
because of length. I think I've been verbose enough in this thread without adding another topic into the mix 
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
- Login to post comments
Offline And how do you motivate people to do things for society at large?
The same way you do now, but even more efficiently. More socialism doesn't necessarily equal more welfare. While there are people out there who prey on the system, the majority are legitimately out of work. The existence of welfare is indicative of a society which doesn't provide the ability to produce to everyone capable of producing all and/or most and/or some of the time. Many of the people out of work could be employed if there were opportunities which were available to them. Most of the reasons for ineligibility for employment could be curtailed by making it simple and easy to find any and all employment in any area, and easy to find transportation or relocate.
Streamlining education and employment would be an easy thing to accomplish, providing more experience to children on how the world works before they enter it on their own, allowing them more choices in their education based on their interests combined
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline with the needs of society.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:When you say "socialist" he gets an image of a dictatorship like Cuba or China. I am not for those systems. I am for an open market. Now if that is not what you advocate then the word "socialism" has a different context than popular definition.
I understand the definition of socialism quite well thank you.
Brian37 wrote:NOW HAVING SAID THAT, I really get tired of saying "capitalism" IS NOT a form of government. Saudi Arabia's royal family capitalizes off the sale of oil. Capitalism does not require equality via constitutional protection. All "capitalize" means is to make money. It says nothing about how that money is made.
Capitalism is not the same as "capitalize". Capitalism is by definition an economic system where trade and industry are controlled by private owners. A system where the government/dictator/royalty/aristocracy owns the significant portion of trade and industry is by definition, not capitalism. The only thing required to have capitalism is for the government to recognize/protect the individual right to own property.
This is opposed to feudalism where government appointed aristocrats owned the land, mercantilism where certain companies were given government sponsored monopolies, socialism where ownership is through coops/the state, communism where there is no state but the means of production is owned by the "public", fascism where there are private owners but they have no real control because an authoritarian state controls everything.
Brian37 wrote:FYI we already have socialism. Privatized profits and socialized loses. We need to get away from corporate welfare.
No one I voted for supports corporate welfare. You can't honestly say the same.
Brian37 wrote:We DO need higher taxes on the rich. WE at the same time CAN have less government like he wants by having more self introspection and awareness of the pay gap and cost of living gap.
Can you explain to me why the pay gap is a problem? What about the tax gap? I think that problem needs to be fixed.
Brian37 wrote:The point is life is not either or and in a complex society with many different needs you cannot make blanket solutions to fit the needs of all.
Then why are you always trying to do so?
Brian37 wrote:I value his right to own a private business. But we do need the monopolies broken on cost and we do need to get big money out of the politics of both parties.
What monopoly? Name one. What is the name of the company and the field it has a monopoly over?
Brian37 wrote:You cannot have everything privatized with no government. Nor should everything be all government run. You need a combo of both and checks and balances on both to insure a monopoly of power does not arise via government OR private sector.
Why not?
Brian37 wrote:Our middle class was not created under socialism after WW2. BUT it was created by the majority of society accepting that you could not simply leave people to rot. The open market existed then and it survived high taxes and the government most certainly was not as big. So it is not a matter of either or. It is an attitude change.
The middle class existed long before WWII. The middle class existed long before the existence of our country. Really, from an economic point of view "middle class" is meaningless. It makes far more sense to discuss things in terms of capitalist (those who own the means of production and might or might not work), wage earners (those who work for a paycheck but don't own anything) and moochers (those who don't participate in the economy outside of consuming). It is perfectly possible to be part of the capitalist class and make little to no income or be part of the wage earners class and make millions. Or with the right political connections, to be part of the moocher class and make millions.
Brian37 wrote:Life is not static nor should one solution to one issue be used for all issues and room for adjustment must be taken into account.
That is why laissez-faire capitalism is so great, no one tries to create one solution for all issues. Every business is free to find solutions any way they desire and those that create popular solutions make the most money, while others can still thrive with solutions that apply to smaller groups of individuals. Obamacare is an example of the government trying to find a blanket solution that fulfills everyone's healthcare needs. Socialism in general is an attempt to fill everyone's needs the same way. It's main failing is that different people have different needs/desires. Has it occurred to you that I don't need or want the same health insurance plan you do? Yet now I will have to buy the same plan, or break the law.
Brian37 wrote:Monopolies and abuse of power happen both in government and in the private sector. So simply saying that "socialism" will fix everything says nothing. That idea can be abused and monopolized and corrupted as easily as the private sector. Stalin was a perfect example of the monopoly of the idea of "socialism".
Name one private sector monopoly.
Brian37 wrote:SO the real issue is balance and oversight and the ability to break a monopoly. China has a political monopoly. Cuba has a political monopoly. Here the monopoly is one class. ALL are monopolies.
Well since you define class by income, by definition everyone who has a certain income level becomes part of that class. So of course that class has a monopoly on high incomes. You make it impossible by definition for anyone to have a high income and not be part of that class. The top 1% will always include everyone in the top 1% and exclude everyone else. No matter what the pay gap is and regardless of whether or not the actual names of people in the top 1% changes.
Brian37 wrote:Every venture, be it a government or a private business is not run by an idea, but by humans implementing those ideas. Any human project private or government can be corrupted because humans can and do seek power.
Every venture, be it a government or a private business is created by an idea. Without the idea, it never would have come into existence in the first place. Any particular human involved can be replaced. If the idea is replaced, the business is fundamentally different. (Which is sometimes for better sometimes for worse depending on the quality of the idea). A good idea is worth far more than any amount of physical labor. A robot can do labor without any ideas, but a robot doesn't produce anything of worth without being guided by the idea of the creator/programmer.
Brian37 wrote:BUT, Beyond's wild west mentality is the opposite extreme. I doubt very seriously he would want to live during the great depression or during the years prior where there was no middle class at all and just rich and extremely poor.
Go read a fucking history book. Your assertion that the middle class is somehow a new creation is absurd.
Brian37 wrote:Free education and free health care could very easily be paid for by taxing the top without mushrooming government. AGAIN, we did not have socialism after WW2 we had much higher taxes and cheaper education almost free, and the pay gap was nowhere near as lopsided as it is today.
Really? Where is the money going to come from? Exactly whom are you going to tax and by how much? Because right now you could seize 100% of the income of the top 1% and not have enough money to pay for our current expenses. (The top 1% made 1.3 trillion) Our current budget is $3.8 trillion. It is safe to say that universal free medical care would add at least another trillion (probably substantially more, medicare alone is $600 billion/year). So you have to come up with $4.8 trillion or substantially cut other government programs. The top 5% earns $2.5 trillion, so if you seize 100% there you are closer. The top 10% earns $3.4 trillion. The top 25% earns $5.2 trillion. So I guess there is your answer. Simply seize 100% from everyone earning more than $66000 and you can "easily" pay for free healthcare.
Wanting free healthcare is all well and good. But you have to find some sensible way to pay for it. Simply "tax the rich" isn't enough because there isn't enough money there. And obviously, if you taxed it at 100% most people wouldn't earn that much money legally. The total income of the country is only $7.8 trillion if you are spending $4.8 trillion a year, you would have to tax everyone at an average rate of 60% not just the rich. So what would you do? Tax the rich 100%? Spread the burden to everyone? Or radically cut government in other areas? Which areas? Simply stating that it is "easy" doesn't make it so. The bitch about numbers is they are based in reality, even though our government is trying to pretend they are not.
Brian37 wrote:Beyond tries to falsely claim "I cant" when what he really should say is "I don't want to".
I never said I can't. I said I won't.
There you have it. That last line says it all.
"Take care of yourself, I guess that is what you are best at" Luke Skywalker to Han Solo. Sad that reality mimics fantasy far too often. But Han in the movie woke up. You haven't.
WHEN your business goes under beyond your control, don't blame me. I am hopeful that wont happen because we are finally pushing back. But if things continue to go your way, we are all in trouble.
I can see see you now if you lose everything "WHAT HAPPENED?" and stupidly you'll point to others to blame.
You got me beat, you win. Lets just sew "Bank of America" into our flags and accept our corporate over lords.
Fuck, lets just take our presidents off our money and use our tax payer money to put business adds in place of them. Lets just change our motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "Every man for themselves".
I cant wait until a pound of beef costs 20 bucks while our minimum wage remains at $7.25. Maybe we can all have 40 different jobs working one hour at all those different jobs. Fun stuff. Sounds like a blast. Oh and lets just say fuck you if you cant pay for your health care, just die quickly so we don't have to care for you.
You paint such a rosy picture. Where have you been for the past 30 years when we needed you?
I see the light now. Thank you Beyond, you are the economic Nostradamus.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline The middle class existed long before WWII.
To what size and what degree? Conditions back then even for the "middle class" were far worse than they are today. You'd suggest we go back to that?
You're wild west attitude where your Clint Eastwood economics thinking will destroy us. We've all seen what the "hands off" approach has done. It has allowed money to mushroom government to pay off special interests. It has become a pay to play scam. It has allowed big government because big money has put these politicians on both sides in place.
No size government, big or small will work until the monopoly of big money stops infesting politics. No size government will work as long as everyone simply says 'screw the other guy".
Your mindset will continue to allow the pay gap to explode. Your mindset will foster more poverty. Your mindset will maintain the monopolies and increase them.
The rich wrecked the car and now you complain that someone else is competing for a voice in government. Laughable, nothing short of laughable.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline There you have it. That last line says it all.
"Take care of yourself, I guess that is what you are best at" Luke Skywalker to Han Solo. Sad that reality mimics fantasy far too often. But Han in the movie woke up. You haven't.
WHEN your business goes under beyond your control, don't blame me. I am hopeful that wont happen because we are finally pushing back. But if things continue to go your way, we are all in trouble.
I can see see you now if you lose everything "WHAT HAPPENED?" and stupidly you'll point to others to blame.
You got me beat, you win. Lets just sew "Bank of America" into our flags and accept our corporate over lords.
Fuck, lets just take our presidents off our money and use our tax payer money to put business adds in place of them. Lets just change our motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "Every man for themselves".
I cant wait until a pound of beef costs 20 bucks while our minimum wage remains at $7.25. Maybe we can all have 40 different jobs working one hour at all those different jobs. Fun stuff. Sounds like a blast. Oh and lets just say fuck you if you cant pay for your health care, just die quickly so we don't have to care for you.
You paint such a rosy picture. Where have you been for the past 30 years when we needed you?
I see the light now. Thank you Beyond, you are the economic Nostradamus.
I love how you ignore the substance of my entire post in favor of the last line. Don't worry I will never blame you for my financial situation whether it is good or bad. Even if you were an employee of mine I wouldn't blame you. I take responsibility for what I do. If my business ever goes belly up, the fault will be mine. I will learn what I did wrong, and try again.
Will you give me 50% of your income?
Will you give 50% of your income to the government?
And will you ever answer any of my questions?
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
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:There you have it. That last line says it all.
"Take care of yourself, I guess that is what you are best at" Luke Skywalker to Han Solo. Sad that reality mimics fantasy far too often. But Han in the movie woke up. You haven't.
WHEN your business goes under beyond your control, don't blame me. I am hopeful that wont happen because we are finally pushing back. But if things continue to go your way, we are all in trouble.
I can see see you now if you lose everything "WHAT HAPPENED?" and stupidly you'll point to others to blame.
You got me beat, you win. Lets just sew "Bank of America" into our flags and accept our corporate over lords.
Fuck, lets just take our presidents off our money and use our tax payer money to put business adds in place of them. Lets just change our motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "Every man for themselves".
I cant wait until a pound of beef costs 20 bucks while our minimum wage remains at $7.25. Maybe we can all have 40 different jobs working one hour at all those different jobs. Fun stuff. Sounds like a blast. Oh and lets just say fuck you if you cant pay for your health care, just die quickly so we don't have to care for you.
You paint such a rosy picture. Where have you been for the past 30 years when we needed you?
I see the light now. Thank you Beyond, you are the economic Nostradamus.
I love how you ignore the substance of my entire post in favor of the last line. Don't worry I will never blame you for my financial situation whether it is good or bad. Even if you were an employee of mine I wouldn't blame you. I take responsibility for what I do. If my business ever goes belly up, the fault will be mine. I will learn what I did wrong, and try again.
Will you give me 50% of your income?
Will you give 50% of your income to the government?
And will you ever answer any of my questions?
If I made what Warren Buffet made why not? Are you telling me Warren Buffet will starve if he only made half of what he made?
If I am only making 1 million are you going to stupidly claim, even then that I could not survive on 500k a year? My mom only takes in 4 k a month as a retired teacher. She seems to be happy with that and also helps me out on top of that. But the lower you go the harder it is to contribute. So she could not even at her pay afford where she lives if they took half of that. But your rich buddies on Wall Street would love to use her pension and gamble with the money she made and dump the losses on her and the rest of us.
It is soo funny that a retired teacher has more compassion for those with less than you do and you have more ability to help if you truly make what you imply you make. You like having your moral ass handed to you by someone who only managed to make it to the middle class? Is 4 k too little for her? If not then I am quite sure you are simply being a crybaby.
If people like you get your way she won't be able to stay in her retirement home. Your mindset would kick her out because she wouldn't get the tax credit or her medicare benefits wouldn't cover it, or her private insurance would not pay for a catastrophic illness. Right now she is ok, but with what the right wants to do, that scares me. All in the name of "budget cuts".
And Dylan Ratigan(sp) just had a white millionaire on his show, I hardly think he has a "ghetto" mentality making that much. And that millionaire was blasting the "trickle down" crap you worship. So once again when I point to people who do make money who dont agree with you, you wont even listen to them even though in many cases are probably even more successful than you.
You would cry like a baby if you had to survive on the pay the poor get. And considering where you say you grew up I find it sick you seem to have forgotten that pretending you have not.
"Move up the ladder then" is your common mantra. You are simply projecting your script of life on the rest of us when it takes all of us. All poor, no one does anything, all rich no one does anything. So what I keep telling which you still ignore is the PAY GAP. If PH range in the fish tank is lopsided the fish die. If the PH is balanced and the range is smaller all the fish survive, Since you don't want to do anything for society other than use it to make money for yourself, you suffer the same extraction mentality the climate of this country has become.
Making money is not moral just by itself, it just means you are good at it. I find many middle class and working poor who are decent an moral who don't rip off investors or lie to home owners, or bet people's pensions in the market and still get paid a salary even if they lose other people's money.
And if I never move up the ladder as you claim I should I AM STILL EDUCATED and I am still worth something and still providing a needed service.
You falsely assume that I suggest what is right for me is right for everyone. But don't want to accept the opposite is true. You are the one projecting your script of how life should go and how an economy should be run on the rest of us.
LIFE IS NOT A SCRIPT and like I said, I am so fucking tired of your mindset falsely accusing the middle class and working poor of being lazy.
You have no clue how your attitude if it continues and grows will eventually affect you as well.
Shit, even I do more for my co workers than my boss does. He pays them less than a living wage. I give them rides and sometimes buy them food. Even my middle class co workers do more for each other and those poor they work with. Best we get out of our current boss is a stupid fucking party and and "I am so blessed".
Our prior owners never starved us to death and wouldn't pull the shit our new owner does and did not have your mentality.
There certainly are noble thoughtful rich people, but you are NOT one of them. And unfortunately most of what has wrecked this economy has been a majority of people who think like 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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:There you have it. That last line says it all.
"Take care of yourself, I guess that is what you are best at" Luke Skywalker to Han Solo. Sad that reality mimics fantasy far too often. But Han in the movie woke up. You haven't.
WHEN your business goes under beyond your control, don't blame me. I am hopeful that wont happen because we are finally pushing back. But if things continue to go your way, we are all in trouble.
I can see see you now if you lose everything "WHAT HAPPENED?" and stupidly you'll point to others to blame.
You got me beat, you win. Lets just sew "Bank of America" into our flags and accept our corporate over lords.
Fuck, lets just take our presidents off our money and use our tax payer money to put business adds in place of them. Lets just change our motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "Every man for themselves".
I cant wait until a pound of beef costs 20 bucks while our minimum wage remains at $7.25. Maybe we can all have 40 different jobs working one hour at all those different jobs. Fun stuff. Sounds like a blast. Oh and lets just say fuck you if you cant pay for your health care, just die quickly so we don't have to care for you.
You paint such a rosy picture. Where have you been for the past 30 years when we needed you?
I see the light now. Thank you Beyond, you are the economic Nostradamus.
I love how you ignore the substance of my entire post in favor of the last line. Don't worry I will never blame you for my financial situation whether it is good or bad. Even if you were an employee of mine I wouldn't blame you. I take responsibility for what I do. If my business ever goes belly up, the fault will be mine. I will learn what I did wrong, and try again.
Will you give me 50% of your income?
Will you give 50% of your income to the government?
And will you ever answer any of my questions?
If I made what Warren Buffet made why not? Are you telling me Warren Buffet will starve if he only made half of what he made?
If I am only making 1 million are you going to stupidly claim, even then that I could not survive on 500k a year? My mom only takes in 4 k a month as a retired teacher. She seems to be happy with that and also helps me out on top of that. But the lower you go the harder it is to contribute. So she could not even at her pay afford where she lives if they took half of that. But your rich buddies on Wall Street would love to use her pension and gamble with the money she made and dump the losses on her and the rest of us.
It is soo funny that a retired teacher has more compassion for those with less than you do and you have more ability to help if you truly make what you imply you make. You like having your moral ass handed to you by someone who only managed to make it to the middle class? Is 4 k too little for her? If not then I am quite sure you are simply being a crybaby.
If people like you get your way she won't be able to stay in her retirement home. Your mindset would kick her out because she wouldn't get the tax credit or her medicare benefits wouldn't cover it, or her private insurance would not pay for a catastrophic illness. Right now she is ok, but with what the right wants to do, that scares me. All in the name of "budget cuts".
And Dylan Ratigan(sp) just had a white millionaire on his show, I hardly think he has a "ghetto" mentality making that much. And that millionaire was blasting the "trickle down" crap you worship. So once again when I point to people who do make money who dont agree with you, you wont even listen to them even though in many cases are probably even more successful than you.
You would cry like a baby if you had to survive on the pay the poor get. And considering where you say you grew up I find it sick you seem to have forgotten that pretending you have not.
"Move up the ladder then" is your common mantra. You are simply projecting your script of life on the rest of us when it takes all of us. All poor, no one does anything, all rich no one does anything. So what I keep telling which you still ignore is the PAY GAP. If PH range in the fish tank is lopsided the fish die. If the PH is balanced and the range is smaller all the fish survive, Since you don't want to do anything for society other than use it to make money for yourself, you suffer the same extraction mentality the climate of this country has become.
Making money is not moral just by itself, it just means you are good at it. I find many middle class and working poor who are decent an moral who don't rip off investors or lie to home owners, or bet people's pensions in the market and still get paid a salary even if they lose other people's money.
And if I never move up the ladder as you claim I should I AM STILL EDUCATED and I am still worth something and still providing a needed service.
You falsely assume that I suggest what is right for me is right for everyone. But don't want to accept the opposite is true. You are the one projecting your script of how life should go and how an economy should be run on the rest of us.
LIFE IS NOT A SCRIPT and like I said, I am so fucking tired of your mindset falsely accusing the middle class and working poor of being lazy.
You have no clue how your attitude if it continues and grows will eventually affect you as well.
Shit, even I do more for my co workers than my boss does. He pays them less than a living wage. I give them rides and sometimes buy them food. Even my middle class co workers do more for each other and those poor they work with. Best we get out of our current boss is a stupid fucking party and and "I am so blessed".
Our prior owners never starved us to death and wouldn't pull the shit our new owner does and did not have your mentality.
There certainly are noble thoughtful rich people, but you are NOT one of them. And unfortunately most of what has wrecked this economy has been a majority of people who think like 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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline If I made what Warren Buffet made why not? Are you telling me Warren Buffet will starve if he only made half of what he made?
What about of what you make now? I don't make an income that is even close to Warren, yet you yell at me for not wanting to give away my income. Compared to a majority of the world, you would live quite comfortably on half of your income. So, would you give it away?
If I am only making 1 million are you going to stupidly claim, even then that I could not survive on 500k a year? My mom only takes in 4 k a month as a retired teacher. She seems to be happy with that and also helps me out on top of that. But the lower you go the harder it is to contribute. So she could not even at her pay afford where she lives if they took half of that. But your rich buddies on Wall Street would love to use her pension and gamble with the money she made and dump the losses on her and the rest of us.
I could (and have) live quite comfortably on $24,000 per year. I choose not to, but that is irrelevant. If you took 1/2 of my money, I would have to change my lifestyle too. So, are you willing to give away half of your money? (Not half your mothers money)
It is soo funny that a retired teacher has more compassion for those with less than you do and you have more ability to help if you truly make what you imply you make. You like having your moral ass handed to you by someone who only managed to make it to the middle class? Is 4 k too little for her? If not then I am quite sure you are simply being a crybaby.
How do you figure she has more compassion? Because she is paying for your ass to survive? Instead of helping someone who is physically unable to provide for themselves? But whatever, lots of people have more compassion than me. Wasn't aware that compassion was the sole determinate of a person's worth. Why aren't you in Africa feeding starving kids or something? You must not be compassionate enough.
You would cry like a baby if you had to survive on the pay the poor get. And considering where you say you grew up I find it sick you seem to have forgotten that pretending you have not.
No I wouldn't. I would go make some more money.
"Move up the ladder then" is your common mantra. You are simply projecting your script of life on the rest of us when it takes all of us. All poor, no one does anything, all rich no one does anything. So what I keep telling which you still ignore is the PAY GAP. If PH range in the fish tank is lopsided the fish die. If the PH is balanced and the range is smaller all the fish survive, Since you don't want to do anything for society other than use it to make money for yourself, you suffer the same extraction mentality the climate of this country has become.
Making money is not moral just by itself, it just means you are good at it. I find many middle class and working poor who are decent an moral who don't rip off investors or lie to home owners, or bet people's pensions in the market and still get paid a salary even if they lose other people's money.
And if I never move up the ladder as you claim I should I AM STILL EDUCATED and I am still worth something and still providing a needed service.
I have never said you should. IF you want more money, you should do things that will lead to you earning more money. If you don't want more money, then stop bitching about the pay gap. People aren't going to give you more money for no reason. (Except maybe your mother) There are two ways to shrink the pay gap #1 those in the upper end from make less or #2 those at the bottom end make more. I prefer #2 since it leads to a wealthier more comfortable society. Although, I don't really see it as a problem. If those at the bottom end don't want to do what is necessary to make more money, I am fine with that. I fully support your right to be a crack addict in an alley contributing nothing to society or any other lifestyle you choose.
You falsely assume that I suggest what is right for me is right for everyone. But don't want to accept the opposite is true. You are the one projecting your script of how life should go and how an economy should be run on the rest of us.
LIFE IS NOT A SCRIPT and like I said, I am so fucking tired of your mindset falsely accusing the middle class and working poor of being lazy.
Show me one place in my myriad of posts where I ever called anyone other than myself lazy. Show me one place where I said anything other than do whatever the fuck you want. I HAVE suggested ways that people could make more money if they so choose. I never suggested that they must, nor ever tied it in with morality in any shape matter or form.
Shit, even I do more for my co workers than my boss does. He pays them less than a living wage. I give them rides and sometimes buy them food. Even my middle class co workers do more for each other and those poor they work with. Best we get out of our current boss is a stupid fucking party and and "I am so blessed".
What is a living wage?
And are you willing to give away half your money to the government? Why 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
- Login to post comments
Offline B.S.,
You refuse to acknowledge, in any of your posts, that the current economic system has given so much power to the "Haves" that in many cases the "Have Nots" are completely shut out of the game. That's the current problem -- companies that have any amount of power are exploiting it in ways that aren't even in their own best interests, beyond the next quarter. Companies like Wal-Mart that do everything imaginable to avoid paying their own employees enough of a living wage that =they= can shop at Wal-Mart. I had a close friend who was a Wal-Mart MANAGER and she had to shop second hand, thrift and salvage stores. A company that destroys its own customer base is not a sustainable company, which is why CostCo is making huge gains on them.
One of the companies in my industry outsourced manufacturing to China and one of the suppliers for their Chinese manufacture stole parts designs from an American company. Except the American company knew they were a target for industrial espionage, so they put out bogus parts designs. Well, the American company practically went bankrupt, all because they wanted to save a buck. That's a very common experience -- American companies sending jobs to China, and the Chinese screwing over other American companies in the process. Meantime, "Low Prices!" has become such a mantra that I've got colleagues who shop Harbor Freight and buy two of everything because one of them is going to break real soon. Except that the second one is also going to break, and they'll be back feeding their Chinese junk addiction.
Here's another example of how the current economic system is working out --
http://www.sparkfun.com/news/350
And you expect Joe Shmoe to just up and start a business with these antics happening? And it doesn't just happen with the Chinese. There are American companies that post impossible resumes, then when American workers don't apply, they "settle" for someone from China or India on an H1B. Or they import labor from Mexico. Or just plain hire illegals. I spent some time traveling recently and neither of the hotels I stayed at had a single Anglo (English-speaking white person) working there. They also had no African-Americans. For that matter, they had NO English-speakers. Fortunately my Spanish works well enough to get questions answered.
Yes, a typical American =can= set out and start a business, but the obstacles are massively huge and right now the power-elite are doing everything under the sun to keep out competitors.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline B.S.,
You refuse to acknowledge, in any of your posts, that the current economic system has given so much power to the "Haves" that in many cases the "Have Nots" are completely shut out of the game. That's the current problem -- companies that have any amount of power are exploiting it in ways that aren't even in their own best interests, beyond the next quarter.
What makes you think I support what is currently going on? I have done nothing but bitch about what our government has been doing for the last several decades. There is a significant problem that economic success can be gained through political connections rather than market forces. Anytime any company uses government to either help themselves or to hinder their competition it is a problem. Companies should have absolutely no power outside of their ability to persuade consumers to buy their product and to use the peaceful persuasion of money to convince people to work for them. By far the largest obstacles put in front of anyone trying to start their own business is the government. That being said, the opportunities in our country and other modern relatively free capitalist countries are significantly greater than people have ever experienced anywhere in history.
Companies like Wal-Mart that do everything imaginable to avoid paying their own employees enough of a living wage that =they= can shop at Wal-Mart. I had a close friend who was a Wal-Mart MANAGER and she had to shop second hand, thrift and salvage stores. A company that destroys its own customer base is not a sustainable company, which is why CostCo is making huge gains on them.
Any evidence other than anecdotal? Several times I have been at Walmart I have seen people in employee uniforms buying stuff. From what I have seen, Walmarts wages are generally quite competitive and substantially above minimum wage. What is this "living wage"? How do I determine whether or not I am paying my employees a "living wage"?
Besides that, suppose your theory is true and CostCo is making huge gains because they pay their employees more. Fine, the system is working. CostCo according to you has a better business model and is being rewarded through more business/profits and unless Walmart also changes will eventually lose and become a thing of the past with a few relics laying around like K-Mart or Pamida. Big businesses often do remarkably stupid things as long as we allow them to fail and get pushed out of the market by newer/better/more efficient companies it isn't a problem. Maybe Costco will be the new Walmart in 10-20 years. I don't know, have never even set foot in one.
One of the companies in my industry outsourced manufacturing to China and one of the suppliers for their Chinese manufacture stole parts designs from an American company. Except the American company knew they were a target for industrial espionage, so they put out bogus parts designs. Well, the American company practically went bankrupt, all because they wanted to save a buck. That's a very common experience -- American companies sending jobs to China, and the Chinese screwing over other American companies in the process. Meantime, "Low Prices!" has become such a mantra that I've got colleagues who shop Harbor Freight and buy two of everything because one of them is going to break real soon. Except that the second one is also going to break, and they'll be back feeding their Chinese junk addiction.
So outsourcing is a bad decision that can lead to a company going bankrupt. If that is true, it seems to me that companies would have a powerful enough incentive not to outsource to China. When you get involved in international business you are taking a risk since it is much harder to enforce copyrights, patents and trademarks across borders. People can make the decision whether they want to take those risks themselves. It is the companies involved who end up losing or gaining depending on how things go.
So do you believe that if a higher quality product was available to your colleagues that they would purchase it rather than two low quality items? If so, it sounds like a business opportunity to me. I suspect that your colleagues would probably prefer to buy the cheaper items anyway. Should we pass a law requiring your colleagues to buy quality?
I do want to add that it is past time for us to have a trade war with China. Trade with China is not free and we should jack up the tariffs on them until they agree to free up their own economy, stop intentionally devaluing their currency and enforce patent laws. We win the trade war easily since they cannot feed their population without our food and we could easily survive a bit without junk.
Here's another example of how the current economic system is working out --
So....... are you saying that no American has ever ran a scam on someone? Seems like common sense to me that you would always double check a product from a new unknown supplier. Snake oil salesmen and counterfeiters are going to exist, you can punish them after the fact if you can catch them, but you will never be able to prevent them. It is easier to catch/punish them within your own country, so another incentive to purchase from a US supplier. Again, if people are willing to take on the presumably increased risk of counterfeiting in exchange for lower prices or whatever, is it our place to stop them? They are risking their own money, and their own companies reputation if the products they are building fail.
And you expect Joe Shmoe to just up and start a business with these antics happening? And it doesn't just happen with the Chinese. There are American companies that post impossible resumes, then when American workers don't apply, they "settle" for someone from China or India on an H1B. Or they import labor from Mexico. Or just plain hire illegals. I spent some time traveling recently and neither of the hotels I stayed at had a single Anglo (English-speaking white person) working there. They also had no African-Americans. For that matter, they had NO English-speakers. Fortunately my Spanish works well enough to get questions answered.
You told me a bit ago that I had an advantage because I was born a white male.... now your saying that white Americans are at a disadvantage..... which is it? Personally, I don't give a flying fuck who anyone hires. The only time it is an issue at all is if taxes are not being paid (which is illegal). The obvious solution is to reform our tax system dramatically and get rid of the income tax, but that probably isn't happening in my lifetime.
The number of jobs is not fixed or limited. So what if hispanics are numerous in the (cheap) hotel industry. Apparently they are willing to work for lower wages than you (or other whites) are and the people who go to those hotels are apparently willing to tolerate the language barriers, probably in exchange for cheaper rooms. If you stay in a four star hotel there would be plenty of fluent English speakers. As the consumer, you have a choice of staying in an expensive hotel or a cheap one and can expect a different experience depending on which you choose. Should we require all hotels to hire only people fluent in english and charge $200/night so they can pay their staff whatever you think they should be paid?
As a consumer, you have a choice. If you don't like hotels where no one speaks fluent english stay someplace a little bit more upscale. As an employee, you have a choice. You can accept a lower wage or work in a different industry/improve your skills so someone will be willing to pay you more. Native born Americans are not willing to work as cheaply as foreign born. Yet despite making more money, they also have a lower unemployment rate. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm
Yes, a typical American =can= set out and start a business, but the obstacles are massively huge and right now the power-elite are doing everything under the sun to keep out competitors.
And what is the tool they use to stop new competitors? Government. Government permits, regulations, stimulus money to them etc. I'm all for removing those obstacles. If a company beats their competition by providing a more desirable product to the consumer (whether it is desirable because of quality, price or some combination of the two is irrelevant), that is a good thing and improves all of our lives. When a company beats their competition because they have better lawyers/lobbyists and get special government loans, tax benefits or regulations that run their competition out of business it has a negative effect on the economy. Right now our government is in the business of choosing sides. Whichever party is in power provides benefits for their friends. It is that cronyism that is destroying our economy and as long as Americans continue to tolerate it things will not improve. Government should be playing the role of referee, not choosing which side wins.
When it comes to simply competing with a mega-mart, it can be done. You will never beat them on price, that's what they specialize in. People go to mega marts because they can provide much lower prices due to the volume of business they do. But, there is a lot of room to provide a more pleasant shopping experience, higher quality products, and a more knowledgeable staff. You have to find your niche and persuade people that your store is a better place to shop than a mega mart. When you are starting a business, it is up to you to determine if there is sufficient demand in the market or to create the demand. If everyone prefers to shop at Walmart than your store, you need to find new ways to compete. The answer is to find a way to provide something people prefer to Walmart, not to use government to try to destroy it.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline B.S.,
Government is far from the only problem. Companies are using power that is not derived or provided by the government to activity oppress, interfere with, whatever, people who have less power. Because individuals lack the wealth and power of larger corporations, having the impact you seem to suggest is so easy to do, isn't.
Nations are made up of PEOPLE. Nations should serve the interests and needs of PEOPLE, not corporations, or whatever aristocracy there is, or some power-elite, or monied few.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
- Login to post comments
Offline B.S.,
Government is far from the only problem. Companies are using power that is not derived or provided by the government to activity oppress, interfere with, whatever, people who have less power. Because individuals lack the wealth and power of larger corporations, having the impact you seem to suggest is so easy to do, isn't.
Nations are made up of PEOPLE. Nations should serve the interests and needs of PEOPLE, not corporations, or whatever aristocracy there is, or some power-elite, or monied few.
Beyond cant get it through his head. He owns a business, that means by proxy he has to side with businesses automatically.
He cant get it through his narrow minded shallow script head, that ideas are not reality, they are just ideas and reality is far more complex than he wants to paint.
He doesn't want to see China or Saudi Arabia as capitalist which they ARE. China kicks ass making money through cheap labor and selling cheap crap. Saudi Arabia makes money selling oil. And he falsely assumes that just because we have a Constitution that monopolies of power don't arise when clearly that is what has been happening for the past 30 years which has caused this mess.
And he has a free for all attitude which wont work and will only make things worse. He makes the false assumption that government can be run always like a business which is absurd.
And he is too deluded to see that by reducing the cost of living and pay gap and increasing education and direct investment, the very nipple of government he wants as few people on, which IS a noble goal, would be increased if he did that.
But instead he coddles the monopoly mentality, he values money's power, and the negative selfishness that has caused this mess.
Business by itself is neither all bad or all good. Selfishness is neither all bad or all good. Government is also neither all bad or all good.
He was sold a script, and is stuck in it and is upset that others are not buying into it. And he wont even listen to the same people who have his same economic knowledge who disagree with him.
He also does not understand that wealth by itself is neither good or bad automatically and cant understand how you and I can value an open market because he falsely accuses us of arguments we are not making.
I really hope someday he wakes up. Both you and I know the world wont end and the free market wont die if the things we want addressed get addressed the way we need to do it.
Furry, out of all the issues I could bitch at you about, this most certainly would not be one of them. I am in full agreement with you on this issue.
Beyond is acting like a spoiled brat falsely trying to create the chicken little image forgetting that voting has never ceased and because of the monopoly of money on our politics is exactly what screwed things up. As soon as he figures out that wealth is not the problem but abuse of power is, he'll understand. I can only hope someday he figures that out.
Oh wait.......a Jew who isn't a money grubber? Am I on the right planet? Shouldn't you be on his side?
DAMN IT, another lawsuit. My next post will be as a food critic and I will be reviewing the taste of the foot in my mouth.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline B.S.,
Government is far from the only problem. Companies are using power that is not derived or provided by the government to activity oppress, interfere with, whatever, people who have less power. Because individuals lack the wealth and power of larger corporations, having the impact you seem to suggest is so easy to do, isn't.
Give me an example of a company using power to oppress people without using government.
Nations are made up of PEOPLE. Nations should serve the interests and needs of PEOPLE, not corporations, or whatever aristocracy there is, or some power-elite, or monied few.
Nations should exist for the purpose of making sure we get along without using violence against each other. A good government is one that prevents an individual or corporation from using physical force and violence to take advantage of another. Our current government has become large enough that it is often the tool used by individuals or corporations to oppress people. For the most part, corporations or individuals who use violence or fraud on their own are punished. The bulk of the problem comes from actions that have been legalized for example the bailouts, permits that allow monopolies/ogliopolies, tax laws that lead to certain entities being more heavily taxed than their competition, government grants etc. Quite simply, I don't think the government should be in the business of playing favorites.
You might find the occasional example of a company that commits outright crimes and gets away with it, but that most often shows the imperfections of our legal system. For the most part, if I were to sabotage a competitor I would face legal consequences. But if I become buddy buddy with some politicians I can get regulations passed that puts my competitors at a huge disadvantage and force them to shut down.
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
- Login to post comments
Really? Did I just not say smaller government is a good goal? Did it occur to you that the reason government has gotten bigger is because of the corporate welfare. Those monopolies cause the middle and poor to need more, so it becomes a vicious cycle. Whereas if the middle man were cut out THROUGH a better climate of not leaving people to fend for themselves by giving to them directly by building here more and creating more jobs here and caring more about people than profits, then neither side would need government for tax cuts or nanny state.
There was a high tax rate between WW2 and 1980s AND the government was smaller. It got bigger because of the military industry, oil subsidies and the climate of "every man for themselves" AND the pay gap exploded between 1980s to now. The middle class and poor needed more and are increasingly needing more because the private industry has no loyalty to their communities or to this country.
As long as profits are put before people things will only get worse. Profits are FINE. I am for an open market. I am not for our current extraction market which is putting more of the middle and poor on the government dime which NEITHER you or I want, but it is because of all these monopolies and wealth corrupting politics.
What you cannot do is expect the middle and poor to put up with "I got mine, what's your problem" if the top were doing everything right you wouldn't be seeing the protests in the streets. What you wont do is get away with blaming everything on people who don't have or don't want what you want.
If your mantra is "Cut out the middle man" THEN DO IT, but that requires YOU to care about the workers if you don't want the government caring about them. If all you want is government to care about protecting your wealth you are going to just perpetuate this problem.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You haven't been around very long, but I assure you I am as critical of right wing/republican government abuse as I am of left wing. My main issue is maximizing individual freedom. Every time government grows, more individual freedom is lost. Sometimes that freedom is economic (as in higher taxes), other times it is social (as in telling me what products I must buy, or outlawing my internet poker fucking Bush).
And the ones doing the screwing is not everyone on top. It is everyone in Washington D.C., virtually all of them are in the top 1% because they use their political power to get there, but there are people in the top 1% who did the crazy thing and actually built companies that produce desired products to get their money. The businessman who uses his own money to provide you a product and tries to sell it to you isn't screwing you. It is the people who are taking tax payer money, creating a half ass product and pocketing the rest that are screwing you. Both are rich, but got there very different ways. The person who gets rich from providing products/services people want to buy should be celebrated. The person who got rich because they stroked a Senator's ego should be thrown in prison along with the senator and they can screw each other for the rest of their lives.
The main problem in our country right now is that the easiest and safest way to get rich is through government. Sending more money and creating more power for politicians is not going to solve that. The only solution is to remove the power politicians have to make their cronies wealthy.
I spent several years working internal party politics in the republican party to try to change its direction. I failed to even make small gains. The machinery both parties have built up is impossible to simply change. The only solution is to destroy the parties and make them irrelevant. Third parties did do much better in the most recent election, but much more work is needed. It should be a simple thing for us all to agree that the two major parties have both been involved with screwing us, but the sheep still check R or D every election. My goal is to convince as many people as possible to vote third party. Unlikely to succeed, but I think it is our countries best chance to fix things before they get worse.
The top 1% pays and average federal income tax rate of 24% http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1
that includes all the money made through capital gains and taxed at 15%, while someone like me pays a substantially higher rate since virtually all of my income is taxed at the marginal rate. Then in addition to that is the 15.3% self employment tax on the first $106,800, obviously not a big affect on someone who is paying taxes on a $10 million income, but when your income is in the $100-300k (as many small businesses are) that significantly adds to your relative tax burden. So while Buffet might be paying 20% (I think that is what he claimed, something around that anyway), many of us are picking up the slack and paying 30%+. When you add in state taxes and local taxes, many are paying damn near 40% and in some states/cities more.
Now at our current rate of spending, every American that pays taxes would have to pay a 40% tax rate, even the poor. That is never going to happen. That leaves three options
- dramatically reduce spending which I consider extremely unlikely but would love
- dramatically raise taxes on the upper income levels, which would certainly have to include taxes that push the 50% mark if not break it on yours truly since I can't afford to buy a Senator to get myself special exemptions.
- or ignore it and continue to borrow money until we literally go bankrupt and dollars are worth less than toilet paper, probably the most likely option to put your money on now.
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
Nice sentiment and agreed. Why is it so hard for you to admit this?
There still is a problem and it is you unwittingly supporting this climate. Just like we say there is no such thing as a moderate religion. You side with business by default, so when push comes to shove you think that way, even when it protects the bad players.
If our policies were so good you wouldn't have a growing population depending on government and you wouldn't have the middle class and working poor on the streets protesting.
WHEN anything is left to it's own devices it can and will go off the rails. If you don't want poor players in business then you need to stop supporting the idea of "every man for themselves" that created this mess. Simply saying "get another job" isn't going to cut 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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I have popped in from time to time, but I didn't realize there was this much "economics" and other stuff going on here. Mostly I come for the Science, and to take a whack at Atheists who worship Science like a religion
No, most of the people doing the "screwing" are the ones on top, regardless of how far they live inside or outside the Beltway.
We've had a "buyers market" for employees for 15 or 20 years now. I remember when off-shoring jobs started being all the rage and that's been a large part of how employers gained so much power -- tell people they'll work for peanuts or their job gets sent to India or China. There are a lot of other tools large businesses have used to develop the Serf Class, but that's what they've done -- turned the average working in a Serf. Companies like Wal-Mart, which keeps as many employees as possible on "part-time" status, need to be whacked hard. It's also time the American worker rediscovered the labor union.
I spent several years working internal party politics in the republican party to try to change its direction. I failed to even make small gains. The machinery both parties have built up is impossible to simply change. The only solution is to destroy the parties and make them irrelevant. Third parties did do much better in the most recent election, but much more work is needed. It should be a simple thing for us all to agree that the two major parties have both been involved with screwing us, but the sheep still check R or D every election. My goal is to convince as many people as possible to vote third party. Unlikely to succeed, but I think it is our countries best chance to fix things before they get worse.
I spent over a decade inside the Republican Party. I only left when the GOP became the POJ -- Party of Jesus. Funny thing is that I was still a Christian at the time, but they were so strongly tilted towards support for Evangelical Christians that I couldn't stay. That and they have been rabidly anti-Science. I mean, CRAZY RABID. When Reagan was in office, we all prided ourselves on learning Science so we could understand Star Wars and everything else he wanted to build. Now the GOP wants to outlaw Science. So, I've been voting for the Donkeys, more and more, for the past 15+ years.
When I was an independent contractor in the 90's, my "total, all-inclusive, no taxes overlooked" rate was 55%. But using that is pretty dishonest -- you advocate small Federal government, like many of the things the Feds pay for are going to just not be done. Well, "those other things" aren't all that much.
Taxes were nowhere near that high under Clinton, and he ran a surplus.
See, this is where the brainwashing really shows up -- Bill Clinton raised taxes =and= ran a surplus =and= created something like 23 million jobs. I didn't vote for him the first go-round, but I sure as heck did the second time. When Bush #43 ran there was no way in Hell I was voting for him -- Bush #41 was a disaster as it was, and his son should go down in the history books as the worst presidents since Warren G Harding.
There is an easy solution -- stop incenting businesses to export jobs by eliminating the deduction for off-shore worker wages. Raise the capital gains tax rate until companies start investing in capital again. When Reagan took office the tax policies =needed= to benefit the supply side. But 12 years of rule by the Bush Bozos seriously broke our economy, right along with rampant greed by the Upper Class. It's time for tax policies to favor the demand side, at the expense of the people who've concentrated so much wealth into so few hands. Sorry -- this country exists for all 300 million citizens, not the 400 richest people in the country. And if it takes taxing them to Hell and back, so be it.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."