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 cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
John Gault/Ayn Rand
Another snippet:
"Look no further than Obama’s “Economic Recovery and Stabilization” stimulus package which spends 12 cents of every dollar on economic stimulus and 88 cents for sustaining and enlarging government spending and programs."
I think by the time the stimulus programs other than the handouts gets going the recession will like be ended. Then i am afraid that it will lead to very high inflation that if you live in the 70's can be as bad or worse than the present situation.Inflation can lead to a slowdown in many occupations itself because people will lack discretionary spending money.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
John Gault/Ayn Rand
Another snippet:
"Look no further than Obama’s “Economic Recovery and Stabilization” stimulus package which spends 12 cents of every dollar on economic stimulus and 88 cents for sustaining and enlarging government spending and programs."
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
John Gault/Ayn Rand
Another snippet:
"Look no further than Obama’s “Economic Recovery and Stabilization” stimulus package which spends 12 cents of every dollar on economic stimulus and 88 cents for sustaining and enlarging government spending and programs."
We agree on principle. The only problem with the rationale expounded above is that it fails to consider the same logical outcome it argues that socialism is culpable of. Unfettered capitalism in the real world (scarce resources) tends to monopoly, which means the welfare of ONE at the expense of the rest. It's an ideal, it is not what we call in optimization criteria, a "feasible" solution, as it violates the constraints of the real world.
What you end up with when you adjudicate that poverty is a moral choice is a situation where the lack of contentment of the majority renders the protection the wealth of the few provide those few, useless. Humans are not created equal, there are those that will rise above the rest, social darwinism. But dispossess enough of a populace and your head ends up in a stake, it's the mob rule. You cannot get up on the town square and proclaim that the only equitable policy is to allow the smart and quick to rule and capitalize and the weak and lazy to rot in their moral poverty. In short, capitalists need to get off their high horse.
You need to make yourself comfortable with the idea of marginal utility, and economic utilitarianism in general. I will agree with you central planning doesn't work, but you need to concede those who capitalize don't have a choice but to pay their latest dollar to sustain the very populace that can dispossess them. The marginal utility of a dollar who belongs to a man above the cost of living line is lower than the marginal utility of a dollar in the hands of a man under the cost of living line. Deal with it, don't dismiss it by proclaiming the latter man morally bankrupt for not being lucky in life.
Let's also not forget that these adjudications of morality are hyperbolic. We focus too much on the people who don't work while able to, when there is a bigger population chunk who is working and still is unable to receive from their work. This is the true problem. These are the people who could put your head on a stake, not the indigent, the latter are a given quantity. You have to appease the median laborer, and that requires wealth distribution. To simply assert that those who want a better life need to work harder is disingenuous as in a capitalistic system under scarce resources the idea that everybody can be better off is a mathematical impossibility. Therefore to suggest that bettering one's condition is a simple function of wanting to work harder is bunk. Conversely, this idea that the smart and quick are going to become indignant to the idea of foregoing their last dollar to appease the system that allows them to remain on top and all of a sudden cross their hands and choose to be indigent because it sounds easier, is beyond retarded and hyperbolic, never mind baseless. Marginal utility still dictates of these rational individuals that their decision making process will yield them the incentive to continue to work towards an equilibrium of risk/reward, which is not this argumentative limit-function idea that they're all gonna diverge off the chart into voluntary indigence. Just admit that this capitalism cheerleading has more to do with your natural tendency towards the human inclination of the twix commercial "two for me, none for you" than it has to do with feasible socio-economic policy in this country. Get off your high horse and deal with the fact that life ain't fair, and that giving up half your second twix to retain 95% of your theoretically attainable wealth is a marginally optimum utility of your dollar than refusing to give it up by greed and ending up with zero and your head on a stake. Further recognize such outcome is in itself an equilibrium state and not the diverging pandora's box that you all argue is the death of innovation and motivation and the birth of everybody crossing their hands and doing a sit-in on life. Jesus Hyperbolic Christ.....
We agree on principle. The only problem with the rationale expounded above is that it fails to consider the same logical outcome it argues that socialism is culpable of. Unfettered capitalism in the real world (scarce resources) tends to monopoly, which means the welfare of ONE at the expense of the rest. It's an ideal, it is not what we call in optimization criteria, a "feasible" solution, as it violates the constraints of the real world.
The unfettered capitalism is our own doing. Our government relaxed regulations that were put in place after the Great Depression.
Our government also neglected to supervise and uphold those regulatory laws already on the books.
The "watchers" need to be watching and stopping the greed and manipulation at the top.
I don't believe throwing billions of dollars without changing the laws that got us here will fix it.
yes it will ---the difference is FDR had people that had work ethic, we dont. mexican people are the only ones willing to do the work. lazy and mega attitude, we stink.
I'm gonna buy flour, rice, beans and stock up on soup while looking for a remote sustainable home out in the country
You can come visit me when there's no more jobs and hence no TV shows to watch anymore !
Even more is in the works than this, here's a place with some [url=http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-7dNzZV06cpnGmuKQRUwj0WV6Ig--?cq=1]Yahoo! 360° - Nunitak's Weather Blog[/url]
yes it will ---the difference is FDR had people that had work ethic, we dont. mexican people are the only ones willing to do the work. lazy and mega attitude, we stink.
Hi Huckleberry3911948,
Where do you get this idea? In past days workers marched for a 40 hour work week. Who does that now?
It shows as number 2 on this list. If Americans proudly stated they would rather clean toilets than take a higher paying job because we are not "lazy" then we would rank number #1 in stupid nations.
There are problems with Americans and its culture but why make up completely false statements? Why all the hatred and contempt for fellow Americans?
Yes its true that Americans bought houses that were too big. That is because tax policy demanded it. The Dutch had narrow houses for the same reason. Our oppressive Wall Street backed leadership matters. Yes we drive too many SUVs. We also gave tax credits to buy them .
Congress recently passed a tax bill, as proposed in President Bush's economic stimulus plan, that offers a $100,000 tax credit for business owners who purchase any vehicle weighing 6,000 pounds or more when fully loaded.
When Wizinsky's accountant told him about the credit last year, the amount was much less, at $75,000, but it was enough to encourage Wizinsky to trade in his Mercury Marquis for the Excursion.
What our leaders do matters and the only complaint I have is why are we looking at the two party system? They incite the worst of us to do all the wrong things and they insure the most noble among us are financially punished.
I agree that the work ethic has slipped. Anyone who owns a business or is responsible for direct hires will attest that it is getting harder and harder to find honest, hardworking employees. When you find them, it's hard to let them go.
You only have to read these boards, skim the headlines or watch the news to see how the integrity and ethics of the American people have shifted. Some may find warranted what others find deplorable, but it's a different era and what worked for FDR reflected his times... not ours.
Yesterday I was about to throw up when I heard obama and Biden talking and kissing up to the unions. Wait till more unions will be here and this country will become Europe #2 and people will get less to say and jobs will costs more just to keep the union people to get paid...more strikes like in France and things will be getting worse and worse...not much freedom as we have know it, anymore!
fortget to work that 2nd job just get a better life...the union will make sure that you all work similar hours and get similar pay checks...no extra pay for extra work....bye bye...say hello to Obama/Biden's socialistic club with the unions, Pelosi and Reid in charge!
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.
Do watcha hafta do, so longasit's ethical
