Investing in society?

Mike wrote: I'll be disappointed to find out that everyone's efforts, no matter how gagantuan or how minimal are exactly equal.

How do we reconcile the above idea with the fact that people who have more didn't necessarily work harder for it? I know many people like to think their success is entirely their own making, but I think that is often, if not usually, a bit of BS. Warren Buffet seemed to agree with me when he described the need to recognize the debt each of us has to our society. It seems to me a good rule of thumb might be that the greater the degree of profit one gains from their society, the greater the debt to it one also accrues.
Are there any problems, either with my logic or with how to practically apply it?
p.s. My appolgies in advance to Jun if this thread turns as base-worded as most of the past ones dealing with topics like this have been.

I've no problem with the concept of giving back to my community, but I'm not always allowed to. Instead, my money is being used by those in power to do stupid, horrible, or violent things that I never would have chosen to do. I relish having the opportunity to teach someone aikido, or anything else of value, though I don't make a dime in doing so. My wife and I have been sending money to Hands Together for years, because we know they have an excellent track record of using it where it's needed.

To give a person a job (and even a hand-out, when my neighbors or friends really need it) so that they can provide for their family is giving back to the community.

To have some nameless, faceless government entity take my money away and give it to whatever set of constituents, abortion providers, or weapons designers they choose is theft.

To be forced to put one's children and grandchildren into debt to fund government programs, and to have no say in how the money resulting from my hours of labor are spent, is tyranny.

Even when government does something good with my money, they usually do it in an inefficient manner. This results in my dollar not doing as much as it could have, had I been able to give it to someone myself.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: To have some nameless, faceless government entity take my money away and give it to whatever set of constituents, abortion providers, or weapons designers they choose is theft.

Well, I disagree that government is nameless and faceless...at least, when it comes to policy-makers. I think of private enterprise, big business specifically, as being nameless/faceless. I also dislike the idea that my money goes toward projects I firmly disagree with. It would be nice if we were allowed to earmark our own taxes, or some portion of them.

Even when government does something good with my money, they usually do it in an inefficient manner. This results in my dollar not doing as much as it could have, had I been able to give it to someone myself.

Again I feel the same way about big business (e.g. healthcare co.s). The product always seems to suffer for the sake of profit, whether its quality is shaved or the price is increased. At least I can vote out professional politicians, unlike the part-time politicians who sit on executive boards buying the professionals.

I guess my main thought in response to Mike's remarks was that many people are quick to suggest wealth should only be earned, but only by the have-nots. I'm against absolute free-loaders, but I believe with adequate transparency and access (half of which we have today) nearly any system can serve the will of the people, including social-oriented ones.
...But I guess ultimately I blame the apathy most Americans have. We're often quick to spout off on the grand injustices, but how many of us take direct part in the system itself? I'm in favor of a kind of draft system for politics. Maybe if it was viewed similar to jury duty we wouldn't have politicians making 6 or 7 figures off of it.
I'd also just like to add I like the idea that people who benefit from wellfare, etc. owe some kind of community service.

Matthew Gano wrote: Well, I disagree that government is nameless and faceless.

Me, too. But 'eternal vigilance' is tough work. Not to mention being educated and informed when gov't secrecy is rampant and monies for education are evaporating rapidly.

Either one feels they owe a debt or they feel they are owned something. When the feeling of being deprived of something becomes acculturated there is little hope of clearing the debt (owed or not). Kind of hopeless ... Usually takes something catastrophic to make a significant change.

Really it does not take much effort to write a letter or two once a month to ones local representatives (provided we are talking about U.S.) and let them know what one is thinking. Besides casting an informed vote it is about the minimum effort to actually attempt to be proactive. Believe it or not they do actually read the letters (at least a staffer will) and they might even respond with more than a form letter to well written arguments. If not then they certainly don't deserve ones vote!

We the people means you and me.

Nice topic, Matthew.

I used to be big on the notion of educating people, now I am as cynical as I have ever been.

Matthew Gano wrote: I'd also just like to add I like the idea that people who benefit from wellfare, etc. owe some kind of community service.

My God. The corporate execs and politicians are going to have to do some serious hours!

About the statement you quoted, it seems to me that we live in a meritocracy, unless you are on top.

Let's be clear, big business exists because of big government, not in spite of it.

Matthew Gano wrote: I also dislike the idea that my money goes toward projects I firmly disagree with. It would be nice if we were allowed to earmark our own taxes, or some portion of them.

That's the beauty of voluntary exchange. Your money goes exactly where you want it to go.

Robert Watson wrote: Really it does not take much effort to write a letter or two once a month to ones local representatives (provided we are talking about U.S.) and let them know what one is thinking. Besides casting an informed vote it is about the minimum effort to actually attempt to be proactive. Believe it or not they do actually read the letters (at least a staffer will) and they might even respond with more than a form letter to well written arguments. If not then they certainly don't deserve ones vote!

Absolutely, true. . . But we have three recent and very notorious examples of our representatives completely ignoring voter sentiment. Regardless of where you stand on the issues, the Patriot Act, the TARP bailout, and the healthcare bill were all voted into law without being read and while heavily opposed by the public, or at least those that made themselves heard.

Matthew Gano wrote: How do we reconcile the above idea with the fact that people who have more didn't necessarily work harder for it?

"Didn't necessarily work harder"? I think you'll find that most people work for their money, Matt. They finish high school. They work hard. They go to college. They invest years in law school, medical school, etc., when they could be out earning money and raising a family. A lot of people mortgage their house or lay everything they own on the line in order to start a business. They work long hours. The idea that "the rich" don't really deserve their money and we should take it from them and give it to the people who very often made personal choices like not finishing high-school, etc.... well, that's a fiction.

Not all the "poor" are their by their own choices and some of them deserve help. A lot of the "poor" are their by their own choices and lack of effort. Some of the rich are trust-fund babies, heirs of people that worked hard, but most of the "rich" work pretty hard for their money. Remember... money tends to last only 3 generations in the vast majority of cases: grandpop makes it, coddles his son, and pampered grandson squanders the rest.

But the glib comment that rich people "didn't necessarily work harder" is where the lie is imbedded and is one of the big falsehoods about what really happens in this world. Hock everything you've got and start a business sometime (most startup businesses fail)... if you make a go of it, tell us how 'rich people' don't necessarily work harder.

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: But the glib comment that rich people "didn't necessarily work harder" is where the lie is imbedded and is one of the big falsehoods about what really happens in this world. Hock everything you've got and start a business sometime (most startup businesses fail)... if you make a go of it, tell us how 'rich people' don't necessarily work harder. FWIW Mike

I was with you until this last part. I try not to hide my meaning behind open-ended language. "Didn't necessarily work harder" wasn't a glib attempt to diminish all wealthy folks (i.e. does not equate to "never work harder"). That's as much a strawman as any, Mike.
I meant simply that if all wealth should be earned (the implication I took from your quote) then how does that apply to those wealthy who in fact didn't work harder. I then tried to tie this to the concept of taxes (i.e. what I think of as social investment) to determine what might be a fair way to apply it.
Here's my prime example (to try and address the very last part of your post): my wife is a teacher; regularly works 60 hours a week but is paid for 35; she has invested thousands of dollars on her own training, occasionally to find out that training won't translate into greater pay, never mind the greater amount of work-load she dealt with. She works harder than many people who make twice as much money...people who do work hard, I know. Again, I'm not saying rich people don't work hard. I'm raising the question of how to reconcile the fact that disparity does exist and that how wealthy you are does not automatically equate to how hard you work. I understand the examples you gave: my father-in-law is a doctor, a friend applied to Duke where they boasted a 100% divorce rate for med students. When my dad was alive he owned his own plumbing company; my uncle owns his own general contracting company. I have at least some notion of what it takes for a person to start and maintain their own business. I spoke about "big business" and not simply "private enterprise" for a reason.
p.s. it's probably clear I sympathize more with poorer folks than richer folks, but I value fair play as much as I value helping those in need.

Matthew Gano wrote: I meant simply that if all wealth should be earned (the implication I took from your quote) then how does that apply to those wealthy who in fact didn't work harder. I then tried to tie this to the concept of taxes (i.e. what I think of as social investment) to determine what might be a fair way to apply it.

Let me simplify. Not all wealth is earned by the person who has it, but I think you'll find out that most of the current wealth is indeed earned (by finishing school, by investing wisely, by cleverly getting a well-paying job, etc). The percentage of people who are "trust-fund babies" is always going to be their and the wealth was "earned" by a father, grandfather, etc (wouldn't you like to think that you could make your childrens' life not so hard? What's wrong with that?).... but that percentage is relatively small.

Incidentally, the idea that there is a fixed class of people who are "rich" is a myth. That group is constantly in flux. The reason it's in flux is that people work hard to get to the top and a couple of generations later the money is gone.

What's also going wrong in society is that the number of "poor" who are getting a free pass has been growing steadily. They drain the system. It's no longer a matter of "safety nets", it's a matter of too many parasites deliberately making choices to take advantage of the safety nets rather than work. When someone has bad fortune, of course everyone wants to help; when the percentage of people gaming the system gets too high, of course people who are earning money are wise to object. It's their money.

Think about it like this. Suppose I stand up and say, "OK, why don't all you guys who want to give your hard-earned income to the "poor" just do it and leave the rest of us alone?". There would be objection, plus no one will step up to the pump and give, say, half his money away. The objection is really, when you cut to the chase, that in fact part of the idea is to *force* other people to subject themselves to the values you have. Watch the dialogue and interplay... a lot of the idea is not just to "give to the poor", it's also very much a power play where one side is trying to force their values on the other side.

And don't think the Far Right won't try to force their values on everyone if they get in power, too. If they get in power there will be forced anti-abortion laws, prayer in school perhaps, and so on.

Here's my prime example (to try and address the very last part of your post): my wife is a teacher; regularly works 60 hours a week but is paid for 35; she has invested thousands of dollars on her own training, occasionally to find out that training won't translate into greater pay, never mind the greater amount of work-load she dealt with. She works harder than many people who make twice as much money...people who do work hard, I know. Again, I'm not saying rich people don't work hard. I'm raising the question of how to reconcile the fact that disparity does exist and that how wealthy you are does not automatically equate to how hard you work.

So why didn't your wife become a doctor, too? I'm sure her dad would have liked that. Remember what I said about money lasting 3 generations.

Don't get me wrong, either. My daughter is a school-teacher and I know they don't pay her enough. But she's worked hard, been careful where she's taken positions (to get top dollar), and is looking for the next move up (in or out of teaching).

p.s. it's probably clear I sympathize more with poorer folks than richer folks, but I value fair play as much as I value helping those in need.

I sympathize with the people, rich or poor, who work hard and make good decisions. So does Mother Nature. The Children's Crusade mentality almost always ends up in ruin and that's why Mother Nature sides with the survival of the fittest. Doesn't stop me from giving to charity... just saying where my sympathies lie.

Mike

Ayn Rand Libertarian style "Social Darwinism" can only lead to Economic and Political collapse...I can't believe some folks still drink the Kool Aid after this was made quite obvious over the last 20 years....

I am sure in the Great Britain of the early 20th century... Men whose stations in life was only a result of good fortune disguised as" hard work" lamented the reformers in their "beloved country" trying to give more aid to the poor least it be found out they are frauds...

Let's hope instead of decay and decline our system of government finds a way to bring justice and fair play back into the game...

If Goldman goes down then perhaps Democracy and Good Government will prevail.

Otherwise as Thomas Frank Elizabeth Warren Paul Krugman have pointed out... Those with all the gold will continue to rig the game and Democracy will be rendered moot as we enter an age of digital feudalism...Where the noble barons of wealth... free of the estate tax.... will build new dynasties on the backs of everyone else.

William Hazen

William Hazen wrote: I can't believe some folks still drink the Kool Aid ...

Anyone notice how disparagement always slips into these conversations? It's a method of trying to force one's views on others by trivializing the people on the other side of the argument.

Mike Sigman

William Hazen wrote: Ayn Rand Libertarian style "Social Darwinism" can only lead to Economic and Political collapse...I can't believe some folks still drink the Kool Aid after this was made quite obvious over the last 20 years....

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

That is just a jumble of names, ideas, and conclusions, and it can't stand without further explanation.

First, I really don't think it's accurate to call Ayn Rand a "Social Darwinist."

Then you link it to Libertarianism, which is completely false.

There has been nothing Libertarian about the last 20 years. Any economic or political collapse will have to be attributed to something else.

I might suggest starting with the video that is linked in my sig line. Almost everything Paul Krugman (and other Keynesians) utters about economics is dead wrong.

We have larger, more intrusive government. More power has been concentrated in the federal government. And our economic policy is about two steps away from central planning.

A strong dose of Libertarianism is exactly what we need.

Mike Sigman wrote: Let me simplify. Not all wealth is earned by the person who has it, but I think you'll find out that most of the current wealth is indeed earned (by finishing school, by investing wisely, by cleverly getting a well-paying job, etc).

I agree. As it relates to trust fund babies, etc. I was more refering to less extreme cases of work per unit of value...the difference, say, between a miner and a CEO. Do CEO's put in more work than a miner? If they don't, do they have a social obligation to invest more since they receive greater benefit for less work? Actually, if you don't mind, for the sake of argument let's assume the CEO works less.
Also, I don't like the idea of inheritance taxes. However, I'm always open to the idea that ridiculous sums of money should probably be put in check...For the same reason I think large pools of power ought have Checks and Balances.

(wouldn't you like to think that you could make your childrens' life not so hard?

My life is not hard and rarely ever has been. If anything, I intend to make my son work a little harder than I did.

Incidentally, the idea that there is a fixed class of people who are "rich" is a myth. That group is constantly in flux. The reason it's in flux is that people work hard to get to the top and a couple of generations later the money is gone.

Sure, I think there's generally more new money than old money in our society...though, that old money is usually extremely well dug in. People tend to take things for granted when they've had them in plenty, so it makes sense to me people would lose sight of what made them wealthy: work. On the other hand, I seem to recall being told there is a tendancy for people who are good with money to have children who are good with money. Whatever the case, most folks stay in the upper and middle range of the economy, and I assume most folks who lose their family's wealth remain in the middle region. It fits with my own family history, at any rate.

What's also going wrong in society is that the number of "poor" who are getting a free pass has been growing steadily.

Do you know how it's compared to population growth?

Watch the dialogue and interplay... a lot of the idea is not just to "give to the poor", it's also very much a power play where one side is trying to force their values on the other side. And don't think the Far Right won't try to force their values on everyone if they get in power, too.

I agree. That's part of the reason i dislike our 2-party system. I was thinking earlier about my "access" remark and decided it's weak because it requires far more work to access major seats of power without joining one of the two ridiculous fraternities who mitigate everything with their competition to be in power. That is to say, if you want to accomplish something "good," you have to spend time fighting the other team or you lose support.

Matthew Gano wrote: Do CEO's put in more work than a miner? If they don't, do they have a social obligation to invest more since they receive greater benefit for less work?

Er... I dunno. Do the people who put in the work to decide to finish high school, to work at any hard-earned goal, to make any 'smarter' choice', have an obligation to give the fruits of their better choices to the people who didn't work, didn't make the right choices, etc., to the people who didn't?

If you say yes, please send me a check for any advantages you have that I wasn't clever enough to chase down, work for, etc., so that I can benefit from your own hard work.

I'll be willing to bet that you won't write me for the address to which to send the address to (If I'm wrong, please p.m. me and I'll send you my address).

Frankly, I'm betting that you're being not only duplicitous to me, but also to yourself. You'd be willing to be on Fafrhd and Gray Mouser than on me, right?

Actually, if you don't mind, for the sake of argument let's assume the CEO works less. Also, I don't like the idea of inheritance taxes. However, I'm always open to the idea that ridiculous sums of money should probably be put in check...For the same reason I think large pools of power ought have Checks and Balances.

You know what? I'll bet everything I own that you're taking the theoretical side.

I'll bet that if you worked so hard (college, work, mortgage on the house, etc.) you wouldn't be so willing to have someone who has very little tell you how much of your money should be taken away. I.e., unless you have a lot of money, I'll bet you're on the side of the 'democracy-killer' to the extent that you'd like to take away the money from people who have earned more than you.

In other words... how is this different than any other form of robbery? I don't really see the difference, so please explain it to me.

Oh.... and BTW.... this is what even the ancient Greeks realized would be the doom of any democracy. The poor will always vote to have that other people give them their money. Goodbye Democracy.... hello anarchy. Let's go back to the Dark Ages.

Sure, I think there's generally more new money than old money in our society...though, that old money is usually extremely well dug in.

Really? And what percentage of the total "rich" is "old money"? I'll bet you have no idea, frankly. I think you're just parroting they typical "the rich don't pay enough taxes" stuff without really thinking it through. Sounds good when you're waving the pitchfork in front of the castle, but really it's just a sign of the singular views taken from authority-figures which one thinks are trendy.

People tend to take things for granted when they've had them in plenty,

Are you speaking from the experience of one who has had so much "in plenty", or are you parroting the words which sound so good to college sophomores and who don't have enough real-world experience? Who paid for you to go to Japan to study Aikido, BTW? You've earned your own way? You're putting aside your own money for your retirement? Let's look at your books.... I'm willing to bet a lot that your empathy for the poor-folks has got a lot to do with the fact that you don't really know what it's like to be so poor that you can't even crawl out of the poor side of town, much less make it to Japan to study Aikido. Of course I could be wrong, but I expect you to show it before I'll accept the bona fides about your "feelings" of how society should be wrong.

Respectfully waiting,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: Er... I dunno. Do the people who put in the work to decide to finish high school, to work at any hard-earned goal, to make any 'smarter' choice', have an obligation to give the fruits of their better choices to the people who didn't work, didn't make the right choices, etc., to the people who didn't?

Well let me simplify: do people owe any obligation to their society? If so, to what extent would you offer as a reasonable thing? If not, why?

Frankly, I'm betting that you're being not only duplicitous to me, but also to yourself. You'd be willing to be on Fafrhd and Gray Mouser than on me, right? You know what? I'll bet everything I own that you're taking the theoretical side.

"To be on..."? I can't tell what you're saying here.
If I'm being duplicitous to you or myself I'd thank you for freeing me of the delusion preventing me from seeing it.

In other words... how is this different than any other form of robbery? I don't really see the difference, so please explain it to me.

So all taxation is robbery?

The poor will always vote to have that other people give them their money. Goodbye Democracy.... hello anarchy. Let's go back to the Dark Ages. Really?

I'm sorry, but the Dark Ages didn't come about through poor people voting for anything. And where the poor outnumber the not-poor, shouldn't majority still rule?

I think you're just parroting they typical "the rich don't pay enough taxes" stuff without really thinking it through.

Actually I began primarily by asking questions in order to adjust my own thinking. I'm asking what people think about a few key ideas and you're putting more words in my mouth than I know what to do with.

Sounds good when you're waving the pitchfork in front of the castle, but really it's just a sign of the singular views taken from authority-figures which one thinks are trendy.

I'm not much for trends, but thanks for implying I've got mob-mentality.

Are you speaking from the experience of one who has had so much "in plenty", or are you parroting the words which sound so good to college sophomores and who don't have enough real-world experience?

"So you've been to school for a year or two and you know you've seen it all..." Maybe I need a Holiday in Cambodia?
It's just a belief, based on personal observation. Could be wrong of course. Maybe most people know how good they have it.

Who paid for you to go to Japan to study Aikido, BTW? You've earned your own way? You're putting aside your own money for your retirement? Let's look at your books.... I'm willing to bet a lot that your empathy for the poor-folks has got a lot to do with the fact that you don't really know what it's like to be so poor that you can't even crawl out of the poor side of town, much less make it to Japan to study Aikido.

So my empathy comes from not being poor? Like I'm feeling guilty or something? Not that I can tell. No, never been that poor. Have I been in plenty? Compared to some I've always been rich, but compared to most I knew growing up, my little trailer meant, to them, I was poor. I've already said I believe I've never had a hard life, but that also comes from my dad telling me stories about growing up in North Africa. But who cares where my empathy comes from. What's wrong with the ideas I put forward? You seem to be saying taxation is theft. I'm asking to what degree we can say a person needs to pay back into their society.

Mike Sigman wrote: Anyone notice how disparagement always slips into these conversations? It's a method of trying to force one's views on others by trivializing the people on the other side of the argument. Mike Sigman

I am so sorry to have trivialized your opinion...I will try to be more aware of your "sensitivities" regarding your noble attempts to buttress your arguments with false equivalencies..

William Hazen

Michael Varin wrote: Whoa, whoa, whoa. That is just a jumble of names, ideas, and conclusions, and it can't stand without further explanation. First, I really don't think it's accurate to call Ayn Rand a "Social Darwinist."

She is....

Then you link it to Libertarianism, which is completely false. There has been nothing Libertarian about the last 20 years. Any economic or political collapse will have to be attributed to something else.

So Milton Friedman and his protege Alan Greenspan were what then???

I might suggest starting with the video that is linked in my sig line. Almost everything Paul Krugman (and other Keynesians) utters about economics is dead wrong.

Really then why is it working?

We have larger, more intrusive government. More power has been concentrated in the federal government. And our economic policy is about two steps away from central planning. A strong dose of Libertarianism is exactly what we need.

And what percentage of all total US assets and capital does the Federal Government Own...0.7%

"Central Planning"?....Ok??? I know where this is going LOL

William Hazen

Matthew Gano wrote: Well let me simplify: do people owe any obligation to their society? If so, to what extent would you offer as a reasonable thing? If not, why?

Oh, I don't have anything against people contributing to society, but *everyone* needs to contribute. The general idea I'm feeling from you is that regardless of whether 'poor people' contribute any effort to society's good, 'rich people' should be forced to contribute anyway. Is that a fair statement? You only see a one-sided obligation?

Best.

Mike

William Hazen wrote: I am so sorry to have trivialized your opinion...I will try to be more aware of your "sensitivities" regarding your noble attempts to buttress your arguments with false equivalencies..

You can't avoid making it personal, don't you? Trust me, I'm not sensitive in the least. I'm simply making it a habit to point out the way you operate in thread after thread.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: You can't avoid making it personal, don't you? Trust me, I'm not sensitive in the least. I'm simply making it a habit to point out the way you operate in thread after thread. Mike Sigman

Thank you... I take my politics seriously and I am pretty upfront I have to admit.

I only operate this way with you Mike... I just don't like you very much when it comes to your politics... However I find my opinion of someone usually changes once I meet them.

Like I have said before Mudita Mudita always Mudita.

William Hazen

Mike Sigman wrote: Oh, I don't have anything against people contributing to society, but *everyone* needs to contribute. The general idea I'm feeling from you is that regardless of whether 'poor people' contribute any effort to society's good, 'rich people' should be forced to contribute anyway. Is that a fair statement? You only see a one-sided obligation? Best. Mike

Not at all. I think everyone should contribute in some way, proportional to what they get from it. People who live off the system (I've known a handful) owe a lot in my opinion. I'd like to see a system which finds tasks for folks who are set up by the government, even if it's just answering calls or picking up trash on the side of the road. It would be difficult for folks on disability, depending on the disability, but I think it could be done. Then again, I think world peace "could" be done...but will it?
I appreciate your taking the time to help me sort through this stuff, Mike. The same goes for everyone else who's contributed to the thread. Please keep the ideas rolling in.

Matthew Gano wrote: Not at all. I think everyone should contribute in some way, proportional to what they get from it. People who live off the system (I've known a handful) owe a lot in my opinion. I'd like to see a system which finds tasks for folks who are set up by the government, even if it's just answering calls or picking up trash on the side of the road. It would be difficult for folks on disability, depending on the disability, but I think it could be done. Then again, I think world peace "could" be done...but will it? I appreciate your taking the time to help me sort through this stuff, Mike. The same goes for everyone else who's contributed to the thread. Please keep the ideas rolling in.

Does living off the "system" include Corporate Welfare? Folks who lobby to get laws passed to game the system and then get bailed out...Insurance Companies who actually hire and pay folks to look for loop holes in your health insurance policy so that they can cap it or drop you completely... And don't get me started about the Bush Tax Cuts...Private Contractors No bid Government Contracts...

What I so disgusting about this argument is the cowards who attack the very people unable to protect themselves from the very same "system" like the poor and are also silent regarding the BILLIONS of tax dollars of corporate welfare.

It's not the poor or the disenfranchised who....

Created the Largest Income gap in American History

Lobby to get Derivatives and CDO's unregulated

Give themselves the best Health Insurance and a Raise every year despite their actual performance on the job good or bad.

Fire thousands to do nothing but increase the short term value of their company stock so they can qualify for their multi-million dollar bonus...

Decrease the quality of living to it's lowest level in 70 years

Invade Countries that had nothing to do with attacking us and lose Billions of Dollars in reconstruction funds

Increase the Infant Mortality rate to it's highest level in over 80 years...

Fire all government inspectors for health and safety so that more folks are dying from contaminated foods... hospitals...broken infrastructure mine disasters etc etc than at any time in the last 100 years...

The one telling statistic about the Tea Party Rasmussen Poll...57%!!! of the folks believed George Dubya Bush was a great President!!!

Yeah those pesky "welfare queens" are behind it all ROTFLMAO

William Hazen

William Hazen wrote: Does living off the "system" include Corporate Welfare? Folks who lobby to get laws passed to game the system and then get bailed out...Insurance Companies who actually hire and pay folks to look for loop holes in your health insurance policy so that they can cap it or drop you completely... And don't get me started about the Bush Tax Cuts...Private Contractors No bid Government Contracts...

Absolutely. I distrust corporations more than I distrust government. My meager sense of things is that they have something that often becomes a de facto plutocracy going for them. They're who I generally think of when I think of huge sums of money that need checks and balances. Their power over what should be a more democratically-oriented system is often too much in my book...ignorant though that book may be.
I hate to think that profit would ever supercede a "good" standard of living, but history shows us many examples of big business treating its employees as a commodity and then complaining when they took their lives more in their own hards. On the other hand, the sad fact seems to be the pendulum swings far one way before swinging far the other, so you get folks on both "sides" of these issues often taking more than their fair share. I hope some day moderate, other-regarding folks will step up to the plate. Lord knows greed is a powerful motivator while moderation is often somewhat tepid by comparison.
Anyway, it's late for me, so before I say something that might be used aginst me:
G'night all and take care!

Thanks for the Reply Matt....

Here is a good little primer on what our form of Capitalism has become (Thank you Republicans and Libertarians!) and why it's imperative we reform it before it destroys our Democracy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...=hp:mainpromo1

William Hazen