Republicans survive Recall effort in WI, what will happen in PA, PGH? (Warren: chapel, buy)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

So any time a company enters into a contract, to deliver/purchase good/services, it's "regulation"?

Obviously! Only by refusing to agree to anything can we be free from the dreaded regulation!

[soniqV]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Right. Before the Federal Reserve, there was no process for increasing concentration of wealth in industrialized economies. Just ask Andrew Carnegie, Henry Clay Frick, the Mellons, and so forth.


Ah yes, the no true Scotsman argument. It has never shown up in the real world, but that is because it has never TRULY been tried.

So we could go looking for this mystical Utopia that has never yet been found. Or we could do the things we know actually work. Confronted with that choice--let's look for Utopia!

Wow, did I strike a nerve?

Sure, even before the Fed central banking was responsible for many economic bubbles and subsequent crashes. That just lends more credence to my assertion of the more decentralization the better. There is still a lot of malinvestment going on and a lot of unliquidized debt piling up.

You did this once before, I remember, attacking me and others extolling the virtues of a free voluntary society as "seeking a utopia." Now I don't know what your definition of a utopia is, but if it's having a productive society with sound money that can be competitive on a world stage, then guilty as charged I guess. We may have never had pure free markets, but we had that, and it sure wasn't any thanks to central planning.

Edit: Also your little logical fallacy can be applied to anyone advocating any set of principles that have not been fully represented in any one government. What are you trying to achieve with your ideals if not whatever you yourself perceive to be a utopia?

[Aqua Teen Carl]

[gg]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

trickle down

It is a joke. Just look how much wealthier the top few percent is and compare that to the rest. Ouch! I get a kick out of all the rednecks that don't want to restore the old taxes on the top few percentage earners. I guess the rednecks want the gap to keep getting bigger and bigger. I wonder if they have a realization of the kind of money these people have? Do they realize that the money keeps multiplying each year because no one can spend that kind of money?

[madg0at]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

It is a joke. Just look how much wealthier the top few percent is and compare that to the rest. Ouch! I get a kick out of all the rednecks that don't want to restore the old taxes on the top few percentage earners. I guess the rednecks want the gap to keep getting bigger and bigger. I wonder if they have a realization of the kind of money these people have? Do they realize that the money keeps multiplying each year because no one can spend that kind of money?

The problem is that those rednecks don't understand math (thanks to a failing educational system) or are just blinded by the rhetorical and nonsensical doublespeak overload that is Fox News to the point that they are disassociated from reality. It almost seems to be a variation on Stockholm Syndrome. If you screw people over enough and tell them its actually helping them then eventually they'll believe it!

[LookinForMayberry]

As a 53 year old native of Michigan with a family of former auto-workers, I know first hand the benefits and ills of unions. I can say without hesitation that they began in earnest to correct great wrongs committed by employers against workers, but they went too far.

Once a balance was achieved between management and workers, the unions began to think more of their powers than of the fuel behind the engine of success. It is not one side or another working against each other that makes business successful; it is the two working together to serve their common customer in a way that brings in more business.

What is true of the business environment is also true of our political environment. We need a working two party system that serves the country in its competition with other countries to gain shares in the world market. This is a balance that requires a balance of powers between not only the two parties, but also the businesses that participate in those markets.

We need to restore balance in many areas of our country, and we cannot do that until we stop fighting amongst ourselves and start working together to achieve solutions that work to solve all the problems -- on all sides.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

It is a joke. Just look how much wealthier the top few percent is and compare that to the rest. Ouch! I get a kick out of all the rednecks that don't want to restore the old taxes on the top few percentage earners. I guess the rednecks want the gap to keep getting bigger and bigger. I wonder if they have a realization of the kind of money these people have? Do they realize that the money keeps multiplying each year because no one can spend that kind of money?

Liam Neeson told a joke of the difference between Americans and the Irish. An American will see a big expensive house and say "Someday, I'm going to live like that guy!" but an Irishman will say "Someday, I'm going to get that guy!". What's happened to us? Or is this a Pittsburgh (Irish heritage/union heritage) sort of thing?

But really...is being rich bad? Are you jealous or feeling guilt? (I don't know...you might be wealthy yourself). If a person acquires wealth legally (and ethically), I don't see a problem. If a person is able to earn a lot of money, should the government step in and take it? Why? And what good does it do as the government bureaucracy will probably burn through most of it before what's left trickles down to the rednecks.

People should be more concerned with their own wallets than someone else's.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry

As a 53 year old native of Michigan with a family of former auto-workers, I know first hand the benefits and ills of unions. I can say without hesitation that they began in earnest to correct great wrongs committed by employers against workers, but they went too far.

Once a balance was achieved between management and workers, the unions began to think more of their powers than of the fuel behind the engine of success. It is not one side or another working against each other that makes business successful; it is the two working together to serve their common customer in a way that brings in more business.

What is true of the business environment is also true of our political environment. We need a working two party system that serves the country in its competition with other countries to gain shares in the world market. This is a balance that requires a balance of powers between not only the two parties, but also the businesses that participate in those markets.

We need to restore balance in many areas of our country, and we cannot do that until we stop fighting amongst ourselves and start working together to achieve solutions that work to solve all the problems -- on all sides.

My thoughts exactly. To me, labor unions are like the NAACP and even Fidel Castro's Cuba. They achieved their objective but now have to constantly be in a "state of revolution" to justify their continued existence. Labor unions can still have a role in protecting the rights and safety of workers but they also have to view the success and competitiveness of the company as vital to their rank and file as well. I've seen some examples where the labor union would rather see the company destroyed and shut down than make concessions to make the company viable. The "You can't scare me...I'm stickin' with the union" mentality is counterproductive.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

But really...is being rich bad? Are you jealous or feeling guilt? (I don't know...you might be wealthy yourself). If a person acquires wealth legally (and ethically), I don't see a problem. If a person is able to earn a lot of money, should the government step in and take it? Why? And what good does it do as the government bureaucracy will probably burn through most of it before what's left trickles down to the rednecks.

Americans are not upset at the man who had a brilliant idea that made him wealthy. Americans are not upset at the man who's hard work and ambition made him wealthy. Americans are not upset with the man whose products enhance their daily lives and thus make him wealthy.

Americans are upset with the man who uses his wealth to make laws to say he does not have to pay his fair share. Americans are upset with the man who says he should be awarded for failure just because he currently possesses wealth. Americans are upset at the man who provides awful products and services without alternative to maintain his wealth.

It isn't inherently bad to be rich. It is inherently bad to destroy the standard of living of those below you just so a small circle can be well off.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

It is a joke. Just look how much wealthier the top few percent is and compare that to the rest. Ouch! I get a kick out of all the rednecks that don't want to restore the old taxes on the top few percentage earners. I guess the rednecks want the gap to keep getting bigger and bigger. I wonder if they have a realization of the kind of money these people have? Do they realize that the money keeps multiplying each year because no one can spend that kind of money?

Maybe some of us have worked hard to make more money for ourselves instead of whining about the wealthy having too much?

I started investing in stocks with $500 when I was 19 years old (all the money I had then!), and made enough to buy a home at 23.

Stop complaining about the rich and learn something from them. You know what they say...those who are too lazy to make something of themselves resort to complaining. The wealthy already carry this country's tax burden.