100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Let's talk about the problem... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
does your boss require absolute proof were you are spending your paycheck? do you require absolute proof where the grocery store is spending the money you spend there? why is where the government spends money any of your business? i mean, everyone else lies about what they are spending money on, but your only mad at the government? and with all the spending the government does, just how big would this list be? face it, the government doesn't owe us any explanations on things that are none of our business... do you think they should tell us they are spending money on top secret projects? Your paycheck is your money, not your employers. Taxes are the individuals money taken to support the society. The citizens should have the right to know, as members of the society, how their tax money is being spent. Sunshine laws were enacted to give us greater access to government meetings. We need transparency laws that will require budgetary transparency. I don't expect that military and intelligence community spending could be entirely transparent, but the rest of the Government should be. thats why there is a voting system, so you can vote for people to spend the money more closely to how you want... but no 1 person can say what the government is spending money on, that is just impossible... Yeah and the voting system is a joke too. Our votes mean about as much a piece of fluff on a suit, that is to say, not very much. And it's no more impossible than to ask us to try and understand a "law" the size of a damn dictionary. You wanna talk impossible? That would about be it. quit voting for lawyers then.... I don't vote anymore, I think it's meaningless quite frankly. The whole thing is rigged, and we're all the losers. then your a big part of the problem your crying about here... if nobody voted, the government can do what it wants... Actually if no one voted, their system of control would collapse. Or better yet, if people stopped voting for either party, and voted Independent instead. The whole two party system is how they have gained all this power, making it seem like that's the only choice (which is really two sides of the same coin), when it's not. It's much like if everyone stopped paying taxes. They need us a lot more than we need them. i would say your very wrong there... if nobody was voting, they could establish any law they wanted, get anyone in office they wanted, and do anything they wanted because the votes against it would not be there.. think about it... They already do that anyway! So your analogy doesn't work. lol, and why is that so? Because we supposedly have a voice, but they do whatever they hell they want anyway, like passing a corrupted healthcare bill down everyone's throats. "they" was obama, and i completely agree with you on that.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
does your boss require absolute proof were you are spending your paycheck? do you require absolute proof where the grocery store is spending the money you spend there? why is where the government spends money any of your business? i mean, everyone else lies about what they are spending money on, but your only mad at the government? and with all the spending the government does, just how big would this list be? face it, the government doesn't owe us any explanations on things that are none of our business... do you think they should tell us they are spending money on top secret projects? Your paycheck is your money, not your employers. Taxes are the individuals money taken to support the society. The citizens should have the right to know, as members of the society, how their tax money is being spent. Sunshine laws were enacted to give us greater access to government meetings. We need transparency laws that will require budgetary transparency. I don't expect that military and intelligence community spending could be entirely transparent, but the rest of the Government should be. thats why there is a voting system, so you can vote for people to spend the money more closely to how you want... but no 1 person can say what the government is spending money on, that is just impossible... Yeah and the voting system is a joke too. Our votes mean about as much a piece of fluff on a suit, that is to say, not very much. And it's no more impossible than to ask us to try and understand a "law" the size of a damn dictionary. You wanna talk impossible? That would about be it. quit voting for lawyers then.... I don't vote anymore, I think it's meaningless quite frankly. The whole thing is rigged, and we're all the losers. then your a big part of the problem your crying about here... if nobody voted, the government can do what it wants... Actually if no one voted, their system of control would collapse. Or better yet, if people stopped voting for either party, and voted Independent instead. The whole two party system is how they have gained all this power, making it seem like that's the only choice (which is really two sides of the same coin), when it's not. It's much like if everyone stopped paying taxes. They need us a lot more than we need them. i would say your very wrong there... if nobody was voting, they could establish any law they wanted, get anyone in office they wanted, and do anything they wanted because the votes against it would not be there.. think about it... They already do that anyway! So your analogy doesn't work. lol, and why is that so? Because we supposedly have a voice, but they do whatever they hell they want anyway, like passing a corrupted healthcare bill down everyone's throats. "they" was obama, and i completely agree with you on that.. Yes but Obama is just a symptom of the problem, not the only problem. The ENTIRE THING is the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it were true, that a single man could be "the problem" then "the problem" would be very simple to solve. This country has had "the problem" since 1933. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it were true, that a single man could be "the problem" then "the problem" would be very simple to solve. This country has had "the problem" since 1933. True! My Grandma always tells me that! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What constitutes humane treatment Spider?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 07/18/11 03:57 AM
|
|
creative:
You call sweatshops moral because it is better than nothing or the little they had before? Since when do we measure what is morally acceptable regarding fair wages and working conditions/lifestyle conditions by comparing it to nothing? Do we measure everyone's lifestyle conditions by comparison to nothing or very little and then call it the moral thing to do? Spider: It's called a moral hierarchy. The choices are A) Let them work in sweatshops and earn a decent (for their country) wage or B) Force them to work as prostitutes or long hours in the sun working a field with primitive tools and/or gathering firewood for cooking and sale and still get less than they would get in a sweatshop, but while being in a far more dangerous line of work. Building a candy river, a field of lolly pops and clouds made out of cotton candy for them just isn't possible. We have to deal with the real world. Look at Taiwan, which had sweatshops years ago. As their economy grew (because of the taxes and economic activity of their sweatshop working citizens), sweatshops became less and less common. Eventually, it was no longer economically feasible to run sweatshops in Taiwan, so they moved to other countries. Taiwan now has the 19th largest GDP in the world... Thanks for the overly generous personal synopsis of how sweatshops have changed other nations for the better. Did you forget that we are focusing upon this nation and the negative effects/affects upon this nation and the people of this nation following as a direct result of moving operations overseas? In addition, we're also talking about moral obligations that wealthy business owners have to the employees and the nation that has afforded them the very ability to become wealthy. The focus is on the negative effects/affects that beginning new companies with sweatshop labor in other countries has upon this nation. The focus is on the laws in place which allow these things to occur and reward the occurrence. We're talking about whether or not these laws are just. We're talking about the moral principles governing and directing these considerations. Did you forget the moral aspects I've been raising or did you think that I was finished... something else perhaps? I asked two very pertinent questions. Neither has been answered. But you want to shut them down, subjecting the employees to greater hardships, just so that you can hold on to a smug sense of moral superiority. It's disgusting that you hold your self-satisfaction in so much higher esteem than those who you would condemn to suffer.
Skirting around the issues I've raised and arguing against your own imagination. You invoke "moral hierarchy", then go on to build an entire argument around something other than the few moral questions I've raised. I've yet to lay out a moral argument, as I'm still attending yours. I'm still asking questions regarding the moral position you've put forth. Contrary to these facts, I'm accused by you of having "a smug sense of moral superiority based upon self-satifaction"? Interesting. Could it be that you have no idea what grounds my position? Could it be that you realize the groundlessness of your own position? Could it be that you're anxiously awaiting for another to turn your arguments into a meaningless string of words? Could it be that you remember the deconstruction of your arguments in the distant and recent past? Could it be that past arguments still prick the side? Could it be that these things cause emotional uncomfort to manifest and surface in the guise of personal attacks? Let the reader decide. creative:
You call sweatshops moral because it is better than nothing or the little they had before? Since when do we measure what is morally acceptable regarding fair wages and working conditions/lifestyle conditions by comparing it to nothing? Do we measure everyone's lifestyle conditions by comparison to nothing or very little and then call it the moral thing to do? How does that work when we compare wealthy people's lifestyle? I mean, half of what they accumulate without taxes is better than nothing... right? Spider: You are comparing apples to oranges. The phrase above is meant to denote the mistake in thought of drawing a comparison between uncomparable things. You're accusing me of committing this error in thought. The error here belongs to your overconfidence that the above would continue unchecked. No matter how different the individual specifics may be, lifestyle conditions share common denominators that make them all lifestyle conditions. Apples to apples. We were discussing what we measure lifestyle conditions against/to/with. Since when do we measure what is morally acceptable regarding fair wages and working conditions/lifestyle conditions by comparing it to nothing? In the sweatshops, the workers are getting paid the amount to which they agreed upon hiring. In the case of the wealthy, they are earning the amount that their work is worth, but then the Government is taking 50%. How you can equate the two is beyond reason.
I've never equated the two. You may confuse an unwary reader with your irrelevant claims that avoid facing the music. You may impress yourself and others with stating facts and then drawing completely unsupported conclusion from them through invalid reasoning methods, but you do not impress me neither with your 'toughguy' picture that reflect the 'toughguy' words you express, nor with the cowardice causing you to avoid answering the questions being put forth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well. Alot has happened on this thread since I was last online. The question of honoring a contract to agree to work at a certain wage is an easy one to deal with. All the workers quit their jobs and immediately negotiate a new contract with the representation of a labor union. Simple, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot can be gleaned from these discussions we have. There are three points I would like to make.
1) Creative hit the nail on the head with this one. It is a wonderful thing to express concern for the millions of poor people in the world who benefit from having jobs. We all want to see that happen worldwide, but to put the interests of foreigners above the interests of Americans seems to me to be borderline treason. 2) The entire right wing pounds on President Obama for not creating enough jobs. I take this as an acknowledgement that there are not enough jobs. At the same time, they excoriate the people who do not have these jobs that don't exist for being lazy, shiftless parasites. The disconnect between these two attitudes seems to me to be, at the least, goofy and schizophrenic. 3) I think that we can all agree that businesses are inherently amoral. Their soul purpose is to make money. Yet, some want to deal with their treatment with their brand of "morality". this makes no sense to me. Contrary to the opinion of a tiny minority of people, businesses are not people. They are not to be dealt with like they are people. It is the people who run and facilitate businesses who need to be treated in a moral fashion. That's what contract administration is all about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot can be gleaned from these discussions we have. There are three points I would like to make. 1) Creative hit the nail on the head with this one. It is a wonderful thing to express concern for the millions of poor people in the world who benefit from having jobs. We all want to see that happen worldwide, but to put the interests of foreigners above the interests of Americans seems to me to be borderline treason. 2) The entire right wing pounds on President Obama for not creating enough jobs. I take this as an acknowledgement that there are not enough jobs. At the same time, they excoriate the people who do not have these jobs that don't exist for being lazy, shiftless parasites. The disconnect between these two attitudes seems to me to be, at the least, goofy and schizophrenic. 3) I think that we can all agree that businesses are inherently amoral. Their soul purpose is to make money. Yet, some want to deal with their treatment with their brand of "morality". this makes no sense to me. Contrary to the opinion of a tiny minority of people, businesses are not people. They are not to be dealt with like they are people. It is the people who run and facilitate businesses who need to be treated in a moral fashion. That's what contract administration is all about. oh wow... lefty POV... how exciting... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot can be gleaned from these discussions we have. There are three points I would like to make. 1) Creative hit the nail on the head with this one. It is a wonderful thing to express concern for the millions of poor people in the world who benefit from having jobs. We all want to see that happen worldwide, but to put the interests of foreigners above the interests of Americans seems to me to be borderline treason. 2) The entire right wing pounds on President Obama for not creating enough jobs. I take this as an acknowledgement that there are not enough jobs. At the same time, they excoriate the people who do not have these jobs that don't exist for being lazy, shiftless parasites. The disconnect between these two attitudes seems to me to be, at the least, goofy and schizophrenic. 3) I think that we can all agree that businesses are inherently amoral. Their soul purpose is to make money. Yet, some want to deal with their treatment with their brand of "morality". this makes no sense to me. Contrary to the opinion of a tiny minority of people, businesses are not people. They are not to be dealt with like they are people. It is the people who run and facilitate businesses who need to be treated in a moral fashion. That's what contract administration is all about. All of your misunderstandings about the economy could be solved with a single course in the Austrian School of economics. You could also watch "Free To Choose". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of your misunderstandings about the economy could be solved with a single course in the Austrian School of economics.
No thanks. the last place I would look for education would be supply-side prpoaganda outlets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just been reading up a little on the Austrian School. It seemed to be popular during the late 19th and early 20th century. That was when Europe and America was experiencing huge boom and bust cycles. The School seems to have been in the dog house since the 20s with all recognized economists. even Milton Friedman doesn't think much of it. Only people who want to take us back to the frontier days think it's a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the keen readers out there, I'm laying down the groundwork for showing how certain members of society have their moral value decisions legitimized.
Curious isn't it. The thought I mean. Personal moral values have been made into law. How's that apple taste... to borrow from KerryO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Tastee Krunch Klub.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The housing bubble had regulations, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of loans that actually followed the regulations were not the ones that initially defaulted causing the collapse. Now, it's been a while since I looked at the numbers, so they may have changed in the past couple years. But the collapse itself did not begin from loans following the regs. Greed and the quick profit regardless of the consequences... no accountability. That was the problem. Some loan officers, and many if not most mortgage brokers, knowingly offered unqualified citizens a mortgage that they would never be able to afford. So, because they recognized this very high probability for default, they began selling those bad loans to hedge fund managers who again sold the bad loans on the market. All the while making money hand over fist. The loans went into default... as expected, the shareholders went belly up, the undisciplined banks went belly up, and the merchants walked away with incredible profits and no accountability. That was the problem. There was no vested interest in the success of the loans to begin with by those who were setting them up. Very true ... and irresponsible. But wouldn't it have made more sense to invest the $800+Billion in bailout dollars in the families ... how would things look different if instead of bailing out Freddie and Fanny ... they bailed out the families. Families would still be in their homes ... Freddie and Fannie would have stayed in business because people would have been able to pay their mortgages... Call me simplistic ... but it makes sense to me ... The bail out has been a lie and a fraud. The bail out should not have been necessary and the money should have gone to the people through the FDIC when the banks failed. When the banks failed their assets, the mortagaes, should have been sold, at a discount, to those banks that DID NOT FAIL. During the interrim payments that were missed by property owners should have been forgiven until such time as the new mortgage terms were worked out. Those who were in charge of the failed banks should have been held legally responsible for breaches in federal regulations, misconduct, and properly tried and made to pay restitution if found guilty of the charges brought against them. We, as citizens, are not allowed to use ignorance of the law as a defense, nor should the elite who ran the failed organizations be allowed to say "but everyone else was doing it".... If the chain of misconduct created a path to the Federal Reserve, or to any member of a state or our Federal Government, the individuals involved should likewise have been charged and tried. Certainly the FDIC funding would not have been sufficient to cover all the losses, but isn't that the reason for selling the banks assets? Isn't that the reason for trying those responsible and demanding restitution in cases of guilt. If that had occurred, many smaller and sound financial organizations would have increased - and would require new employees (those who might have lost their jobs from the failed orgs perhaps). More people would have suffered far less financial loss and those in retirement might have been able to stay in retirment. Losses of pensions/401k s/IRA s, etc would not have some sort of reimbursement and retirement for many would still be secured. More homeowners would have had the second chance they needed. More jobs would have been saved, and with more money at their disposal, some people may have taken avantage of the situtuation by starting their own small busniness, adding more job opportunities. So why where the financial institutuions not allowed to fail? Why is the pathway of these failures dimmed by a mass bailout? And why have we been told it was to save the economy? With a cool head I have to wonder - are the American people not part of its own 'economy'? The government has told the media and the media regurgitates without fail the story that the 'recession' ended two years ago, and the bail out worked. But who did it work for, who is 'the economy'? Who has been charged with misconduct, who has been brought to trial? What restitution has been received and by whom? If the financial institutuions are currently profitiable BECAUSE of the bail out - why are THEY not RESPONSIBLE for paying that debt back? Why are is the workforce present & future, being strapped with this debt, with no reason why? Who is 'the economy'? Who is the workforce? What is nationalism and when did it cease to be a blanket we shared with capitalism? Did we ever share the same blanket, the same ideals as a people, as a nation? A lot of questions that we have to ask but we can't know ourself without reflection and who we are must be part of a society of people greater than the individual that we would hail as being free. Freedom requires labor, equality, opportunity, responsibility of action, and respect for human rights. Unless we seek these things for all people, we are not free we are capitalists who are individuals feeding off the apathy, of the divided unions of the world. - Why are we at war? - lots of questions that demand a lot of time, a lot of research, and for some - a lot of learning. "Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by power and by force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual." Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
artlo
on
Tue 07/19/11 10:39 AM
|
|
"Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by power and by force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual."
I agree with the statement. I don't see any slavery going on in America, other than wage-slavery. I take that back. There is a robust trade in sex-slavery going on. These private entrepreneurs seem immune to Government regulation which seeks to stop them from doing whatever they want to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A lot of questions that we have to ask but we can't know ourself without reflection and who we are must be part of a society of people greater than the individual that we would hail as being free."
This was the part of her post that I directed the quote towards. In the context of the Einstein quote, obviously he was referring to the National Socialist and Stalinist regimes of his day. Collectivism at the end of a rifle barrel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And how does this relate to America?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And how does this relate to America? It doesn't. It's the same old righwing baffleyap playing bait and switch. What's ironic is that it's conservatives who love forced conformity more than anyone. If they can't assimilate something, it's targeted with xenophobia and the out group becomes part of their "Us or Them" strategy. It's been that way even before Viet Nam and probably always will be until the country is bled dry by the cost of maintaining standing armies fighting constant foreign wars. And BTW, righties, read what the authors of the Constitution and the Federalist papers thought of standing armies before people of treasonous/dangerous speech. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And how does this relate to America? It doesn't. It's the same old righwing baffleyap playing bait and switch. What's ironic is that it's conservatives who love forced conformity more than anyone. If they can't assimilate something, it's targeted with xenophobia and the out group becomes part of their "Us or Them" strategy. It's been that way even before Viet Nam and probably always will be until the country is bled dry by the cost of maintaining standing armies fighting constant foreign wars. And BTW, righties, read what the authors of the Constitution and the Federalist papers thought of standing armies before people of treasonous/dangerous speech. -Kerry O. Interesting. It relates to the OP. A call to the proletariat to rise up and end the abuses of capitalism. It also relates directly to the post that I quoted when I referenced Einstein. After reading your drivel, it seems that you are the one that attempts a bait and switch. Interestingly enough, wars waged by democrats have cost America hundreds of thousands of lives, yet you are implying that it is conservatives that demand standing armies. I could be wrong, but the only time in human history an atomic weapon was dropped on civilian targets was by a democrat. You leftists hide behind your mask of social righteousness, but when the truth be told you are nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites. Where are your anti-war marches now, you troglodytes? Oh... there is a democrat in the white house.. |
|
|
|
|
