Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You would love to see it sure, all of us would love to see it. But it is not enough to cover demand and yes your are right in a laissez faire system if you don't pay your house burns down. I just tend to think it is better if first responders are funded by the state/county/city rather then on a pay as you go basis, because with pay as you go you get stuff like that happening.
human demand is unlimited. it is for that reason that we libertarians don't like to interfere with the pricing mechanism as it directs production. the big govt folk prefer the govt to direct production, but they always create unintended consequences with their actions
Andorra, population 84,000. that doesn't allow for much of a government. Almost full employment. But dismaying to conservatives, spend almost nothing on defense. In fact Pete Seeger had a song praising that fact.
that my friend is called the freedom to choose. insurance is nothing but voluntary socialism. we volunteer to contribute to a fund in case one of us suffers a loss.
That's a preposterous definition of Socialism. You are confusing "Socialism" with "society" and "community."
It was discovered thousands of years ago, that banding together as a group provided is better than trying to forage individually. When the Amish help each other build a barn, it's not Socialism but cooperative community.
So you may think; but it is because of that kind of work ethic that my wife went from sales clerk to Department Manager, to Assistant Store manager to Store Manager (G.M.).
A lazy person does not get a pay raise, nor do they get a promotion. They also have difficulty finding a job.
When you work hard, you never have trouble finding a job. And she didn't. She was in demand.
My wife worked at several different companies over the years, including Montgomery Ward, a local San Diego chain (now out of business), Walker Scott Co., Longs Drugs, and even Target for a short time. She worked as an assistant buyer in the buying office for a time as well.
When she at one time left the Department store for a short time to take another job, she was rehired at the Department Store (It was Buffum's if any of you may remember the store in S. CA) a year later after learning that they were opening an new store in the area. She wanted it. She got it. They wanted her back. It was the most beautiful store in the chain, too, and brand new.
I think what your post illustrates plainly is that many people today just aren't willing to work hard, thinking that "the boss" is just out to get you anyway, so why bother? It is that attitude that holds you back and always will.
I will also add that, I was Sales Administration Supervisor for a period of time, at two different companies, and had people under me. With your attitude, you would have been first on my list to go, if times got tough and I had to let someone go.
Many Americans work their butts off and still do if they can. It was only yesterday statically the US worker out performed everyone. What you see now are former working American scrambling for crumbs, both social services and stagnate wages that do not pay the bills. When millions of jobs leave our shores the results are what you see today.
So you may think; but it is because of that kind of work ethic that my wife went from sales clerk to Department Manager, to Assistant Store manager to Store Manager (G.M.).
A lazy person does not get a pay raise, nor do they get a promotion. They also have difficulty finding a job.
When you work hard, you never have trouble finding a job. And she didn't. She was in demand.
My wife worked at several different companies over the years, including Montgomery Ward, a local San Diego chain (now out of business), Walker Scott Co., Longs Drugs, and even Target for a short time. She worked as an assistant buyer in the buying office for a time as well.
When she at one time left the Department store for a short time to take another job, she was rehired at the Department Store (It was Buffum's if any of you may remember the store in S. CA) a year later after learning that they were opening an new store in the area. She wanted it. She got it. They wanted her back. It was the most beautiful store in the chain, too, and brand new.
I think what your post illustrates plainly is that many people today just aren't willing to work hard, thinking that "the boss" is just out to get you anyway, so why bother? It is that attitude that holds you back and always will.
I will also add that, I was Sales Administration Supervisor for a period of time, at two different companies, and had people under me. With your attitude, you would have been first on my list to go, if times got tough and I had to let someone go.
Well nononsenseguy, I think you opinion here is nonsense.
Your anecdotal finding doesn't represent what we have been seeing over the past 30 years. As you can see from the below charts, which the data is from the CBO, from 1979 - 2007, the bottom 80% of earners have seen their share of income drop. Are this many people lazy and not working hard enough? Has the top 1% suddenly become workaholics? I don't think so.
The difference over the last 30 years has been that the top 1% (and really the top 0.1%) have had their taxes slashed dramatically. The top 0.1% (who account for half of the top 1%'s income) primarily earn their income from capital gains, which has a 15% tax-rate. It used to be 39% in the 1970s. With fewer taxes to pay, the top 0.1% have even more money to invest, while everyone else has less savings.
Isn't it funny........much of Europe is taking a REAL haircut.
The United States Of Amerit*rd..............well, no way we are going to cut back, just a bunch of babies bickering. Oh my, we may make CUTS to projected increases.....that will deifnitely fix the year over year deficit of over 1 trillion.............USA..........heck yeah.
Let's see, the national debt will be 20-22 TRILLION by the end of 2016......retards running this country.
For all the chest beating self-confidence of the conservatives on this forum, none can point to a functioning, attractive place to live that espouses their vision.
I also heard about the "roaring 20s" and the "Reagan Years." The ignorance of almost every other country in the history of the world is pretty shocking.
Funny thing is, if you look at countries more liberal than us that are great, you can easily think at least a half dozen. Doh!
Someone even cooked up a Liberaltopia thread to match.
That's a preposterous definition of Socialism. You are confusing "Socialism" with "society" and "community."
It was discovered thousands of years ago, that banding together as a group provided is better than trying to forage individually. When the Amish help each other build a barn, it's not Socialism but cooperative community.
i never defined anything. my point is that i have no issue with people voluntarily pooling their resources to create a safety net. i have an issue with govt forcing us to!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
