Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 11:18 PM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(06-12-2013 10:32 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  The best companies manages to get their people to run the FDA for the ultimate "game". Yes the FDA is broken. The libertarian solution to the junk the FDA. and replace it with some libertarian thought. Others feel it better to restore the FDA to its true role and dismantle the special rules for companies, such as immunity from law suits... Put some people who are honest and have no stake or "skin in the game" in the companies that petition the FDA for some approval.

You say we should elect only candidates who aren't paid off by big corporations, but then you guys do exactly that! Why is it that when you review campaign contribution summaries, both Democrats and Republicans are funded by corporations, and libertarians are boycotted by corporations and all the support comes from individuals? If we REALLY were on the side of the corporation, wanting to tear down the one thing protecting you from those corporations, wouldn't they be supporting libertarians? Why is it that the Democrats and Republicans get massive contributions from military contractors, while Ron Paul got none, but he did get more donations from active duty military personnel than all the other candidates combined, including their commander in chief, Obama? Why did the big media corporations sacrifice journalistic integrity to make sure Ron Paul could never win.

You claim that you want to get rid of the corporate influence over government, but then you reject the only political party that has no corporate influence, and back the one that's wholly dependent on corporations! I recommend reading Noam Chomskey's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 11:25 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 11:30 PM by The Misanthrope.)
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
Anyway, it is well known in Calvinazi dominated America that the poor are obviously out of favour with the Germanic version of God revised by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest of a kow-towing line of stinking Kraut sycophants, who rewrote Christinsanity to better suit the Kraut Princes and their merchant bankrollers.

America's Gordon Gekko like God, so beloved of the mad dog work-ethic indoctrinated American Proddies, is directly descended from the aforementioned money hungry Hun cunts and he just can't stand Bolshie "losers."

Consequently any wage slave asking his Massa for higher wages in union denuded Bubbalonia is condemned as a "Goddamn Christ denyin' Commie" - and a suspected Muslim "tearist!" these days!

The Grapes Of Wrath:
Quote:"A Red is any son-of-a-bitch that wants thirty cents an hour when we're payin' twenty-five!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:03 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
" In a libertarian system, consumers would be educated to never buy a car without getting a full-disclosure safety report from the manufacturer, and Porsche would HAVE to disclose such a fault because they would be sued for fraud if they withheld it and misrepresented the safety."

the same companies would work with each other to have tort reform to discourage lawsuits, as they did in the past. The issues is only those who can afford a lawsuit, will be protected from violence. The companies who have vast legal departments and vast P.R. departments will fix those "full-disclosure safety report from the manufacturer" to be ineffective and intentionally difficult to understand by an average person with average intelligence.

who is to even say that Porsche Carrera GT, with its front mounted fuel tank is "a bomb on wheels". perhaps to mount the tank on front is for better balance and allows for fast turns with high G forces etc etc etc. and not a fault or defect. The car is meant for a very skilled and disciplined driver, perhaps the Porsche legal team decided it was cheaper to fight off the suits as opposed to redesigning the car. similar to the Ford Pinto. Ford legal team decided it was cheaper to fight off the law suits as opposed to redesigning the car.

if that is true...id never though the Carerra GT and the Pinto would have anything in common. that would be funny except for those who died as a result of those defects. who know maybe somewhere in the bowels Porsche company, there is a document that relates the cost of a law suits vs redesigning the car. It would be easier to have a common standard that all cars meet, then to read a hodgepodge of a full-disclosure safety report from the manufacturer.

whoes who fail to remember history
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 11:12 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
Why did you ignore the key point I made, namely that Democrats claim their party is there to protect them from corporate interests, and that Libertarians would remove that protection exposing them to corporate tyranny, YET, campaign finance disclosures prove that corporations boycott Libertarians (the party you say is pro-corporation), and overwhelming support Democrats (and Republicans). How do you reconcile the Democrat's ideology with the reality of campaign finance?

(07-12-2013 12:03 AM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  the same companies would work with each other to have tort reform to discourage lawsuits, as they did in the past.

EXACTLY, and that's why they put all their money and support behind Democrats/Republicans, because they do just that. This is why I'm against having corporations and government co-mingled and intertwined. I find it so bizarre that Democrats will on the one hand say government needs to be a defensive barrier against corporations, BUT THEN will say corporations and governments are partners in the economy and need to be joined at the hip.

(07-12-2013 12:03 AM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  The issues is only those who can afford a lawsuit, will be protected from violence.

Agreed, the Democrats and Republicans have gamed the legal system to protect the big guy and fuck the little guy.

(07-12-2013 12:03 AM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  The companies who have vast legal departments and vast P.R. departments will fix those "full-disclosure safety report from the manufacturer" to be ineffective and intentionally difficult to understand by an average person with average intelligence.

And that's why corporations love the government. Because in a free-market society, if a manufacturer published incomprehensible safety information, consumers wouldn't buy that company's products, forcing them to be more clear, and to be honest and transparent so they don't get sued for fraud. But the government solves this problem for corporations because now the government decides for us what is and is not safe, and so if corporations deliver a product that proves to be unsafe, they are absolved of any responsibility.

(07-12-2013 12:03 AM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  who is to even say that Porsche Carrera GT, with its front mounted fuel tank is "a bomb on wheels". perhaps to mount the tank on front is for better balance and allows for fast turns with high G forces etc etc etc. and not a fault or defect.

I agree completely. I'm sure there was a reason for it, and it's not simply a "flaw" or "oversight". My point is that I would rather the customer be in the driver's seat, and demand that Porsche disclose honestly and transparently what it knows about the car's safety record, so that the customer can make an informed decision if it's worth it, and be aware of the dangers and extra careful not to crash head on into a pole or something. But now the customer is just a backseat passenger and the government is in the driver's seat. Porsche only needs to convince the government that the car is safe in a behind-closed-doors session, and we the customer are blind and unable to make an informed decision because if the government says it's safe, we're expected to just blindly rely on the government, that they have our best interests at heart.

It's ironic we're having this debate since Democrats always accuse Libertarians of being naive, ideological and living in a fantasy world. Yet, when there's an actual debate, it's actually the Democrats who blindly put faith in a fantasy world where all politicians are good and incorruptible protectors of the individual, and it's the Libertarians who are in touch with reality and say "Hey every human being, including politicians and CEO's, looks out for #1 and wants to do what's in his own self-interest. So we need a practical system of checks and balances to prevent people from blindly handing their lives over to politicians who have a financial incentive to let corporations exploit the people."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 08:42 PM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
“namely that Democrats claim their party is there to protect them from corporate interests, and that Libertarians would remove that protection exposing them to corporate tyranny, YET, campaign finance disclosures prove that corporations boycott Libertarians (the party you say is pro-corporation), and overwhelming support Democrats (and Republicans). How do you reconcile the Democrat's ideology with the reality of campaign finance? “

as you told me, the central part of libertatrianism is the protection from violence. With a big emphasis violence from the state. And there is voluntary trade . (yes you do includes others n the violence) The problem lies that being a libertarian is just being selfish. The government taxes etc people for money for roads ( via a direct tax or an indirect tax). But not everyone who is taxed for roads are using roads. If we only taxed road users to build/maintain all of the roads, there would not be enough money for the work. The Campaign finance disclosure is a idea pushed by democrats and frowned upon by republicans. While the dems are by far from perfect, but I would be more inclined to have a more receptive audience from the dems then the repubs for my more detailed finance disclosure law for for political office.


“And that's why corporations love the government. “

they love the government, when it is bought and paid for by corporations.


“Because in a free-market society,...”

we don’t have a free market society, we have various regulations for a very long time Most people would reject a pure free market society, esp when they are to understand its impact on them. As much as you disbelieve, most people like some type of regulation. Maybe that's why many people do not like a pure libertarian viewpoint. People seem to prefer a balance.


“It's ironic we're having this debate since Democrats always accuse Libertarians of being naive, ideological and living in a fantasy world. “

most democrats just think libertarians are selfish, others call you the “republicans who want to smoke pot” I think they mean you want to have violence against me, but want checks n balances against my violence against you. As for the fantasy world I think the are referring to a pure free market, pure socialist, pure libertarian, pure liberal. Etc.


“"Hey every human being, including politicians and CEO's, looks out for #1 and wants to do what's in his own self-interest ...”

we are back to your violence, when one is looking out for #1, who is to protect others from his violence. Those who can afford laws suits will have better protection from violence those who cant afford lawsuits.


“My point is that I would rather the customer be in the driver's seat, and demand that Porsche disclose honestly and transparently what it knows about the car's safety record, so that the customer can make an informed decision if it's worth it, and be aware of the dangers and extra careful not to crash head on into a pole or something. “

Why have a confusing set disclosures that all have a different set of base standards. Its like buying insurance: auto, health, home, busines etc . Every company has a set disclosures, just to a common person; its all confusing, if there was a standard set rules it would be more easier to compare. Id just rather be sure the car meet a minimum safe standard, and just have to comparison shop about a/c, PS, PB, MPG. Metallic paint,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 09:20 PM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
Thank you for a positive debate. That's rare in a forum where people just usually spew vitriol if they don't like something you say.

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  as you told me, the central part of libertatrianism is the protection from violence. With a big emphasis violence from the state.

Not correct. The core of the classic liberal philosophy is that violence is violence no matter who's holding the gun. The government is just a group of individuals, no different than a corporation. Any private individuals has the same rights as any government employee. This is radically different from the traditional view which is that government is special and has exclusive powers to initiate violence. If I were to bust into your home and haul you off at gunpoint for growing some plant, we'd be outraged. If the police do it, nobody cares. They get a free pass.

In a libertarian system the only government employees who have “special” powers are judges and juries since they get to decide who is breaking voluntary contracts and what punishment the signatories agreed to, and gives the order to execute that punishment. And, yes, that may involve violence, such as arrest. But, that's only because the one being subjected to violence voluntarily entered into the contract, fully aware that violence was the penalty for not complying.

Now, since libertarians understand very few people accept this belief, the compromise is that you guys can create whatever coercive, violent laws you want, with the only requirement being that those who find the laws unbearable must be have the opportunity of moving somewhere to escape the laws. Thus if one CHOOSES to live in a particular jurisdiction, he is VOLUNTARILY entering into a social contract, agreeing to abide by those rules and accepting the violence that is a consequence for disobedience.

So, the ONLY time I disagree with non-libertarians is when they want a law that initiates violence AND they insist on making it a national law so that there is no place we are legally allowed to move to in order to escape the law. I'm a fan of the way the European Union has sovereign states (countries), each with their own laws, and guarantees all EU members the right to relocate to whichever one they want with no strings attached and no obligations to their country of citizenship. This is the way the US was designed according to the constitution; a collection of sovereign states united together under a common defense with guaranteed freedom of movement. Since the US has strayed so far from that plan, I'd be happy if the US would simply do what the EU did, and sign a bilateral agreement, say, with a bunch of other countries that we can live in any country we want, like in the EU.

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  The problem lies that being a libertarian is just being selfish.

I think it's the opposite. The golden rule, do unto others as you'd have done unto you, is considered the “gold standard” of morality and fairness. Since nobody likes being subjected to violence, imo, libertarians are the ONLY ones honoring the golden rule and treating others as we want to be treated. For example, remember when in the first GOP election (the Iowa straw poll), all the Republicans were asked to push for a ban on gay marriage. They all agreed, except the libertarian Ron Paul, who is a conservative Christian and blatantly homophobic (watch Bruno) and feels gay sex is a sin. He said if a law to ban gay marriage passed his desk he would veto it, knowing the Iowa GOP would boycott him. Is that selfish? Remember even the liberal Obama was opposed to gay marriage during that election, even though I doubt he had any personal convictions and it was just political convenience, and Obama didn't change his tune until the public opinion swayed to >51% in favor. Now which of them is selfish?

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  The government taxes etc people for money for roads ( via a direct tax or an indirect tax). But not everyone who is taxed for roads are using roads. If we only taxed road users to build/maintain all of the roads, there would not be enough money for the work.

YES. And if we'd probably be zipping around in vac tubes at hypersonic speeds, LA to NY in 30 minutes. I know it sounds crazy, but read my analysis here: post #63 and post #72. Before you dismiss this as crazy, read it with an open mind and tell me if anything I said is inaccurate.

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  “And that's why corporations love the government. “
they love the government, when it is bought and paid for by corporations.

And is the US government bought and paid for by corporations?


(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  “Because in a free-market society,...”
we don’t have a free market society, we have various regulations for a very long time Most people would reject a pure free market society, esp when they are to understand its impact on them. As much as you disbelieve, most people like some type of regulation. Maybe that's why many people do not like a pure libertarian viewpoint. People seem to prefer a balance.

I disagree. Look at the economic freedom report which measures how much coercion exists in a nation's economy (ie how close a country is to the libertarian ideal). Now plot a chart with a country's libertarian-ness on one axis, and on the life expectancy, infant mortality, household wealth, or similar quality of living measurements. It's a continuous line that the more closely a country gets to the libertarian ideal, the more the people live long, happy, prosperous lives. Now this report focuses ONLY on economic matters, and ignores social matters. And I haven't seen a similar 'social freedom report', but I suspect that we'd find the same trend, meaning the best solution is the greatest economic and social freedom.

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  most democrats just think libertarians are selfish, others call you the “republicans who want to smoke pot” I think they mean you want to have violence against me, but want checks n balances against my violence against you.

Totally the opposite. To join the libertarian party you must sign a pledge to NOT use violence (initiation of force) against anyone to achieve any of your goals. That's completely the opposite from the Democrats and Republicans who say “vote us into office and we'll beat the shit out of the other side on your behalf”.

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  As for the fantasy world I think the are referring to a pure free market, pure socialist, pure libertarian, pure liberal. Etc.

I'm not ideological. I agree it's impossible to be 100% “pure”. However, the closer you get to being 100% the more you live longer, healthier, happy lives. So I don't understand why non-libertarians say that BECAUSE we can never get to 100%, we should go in the opposite direction, trying to be more like N Korea with lots of government intervention, where people die young, desperate and miserable.

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  we are back to your violence, when one is looking out for #1, who is to protect others from his violence.

The government. We're not anti-government at all. We're pro-government. We just see the role of government is to protect us from violence, NOT to initiate it against us.

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  Those who can afford laws suits will have better protection from violence those who cant afford lawsuits.

Agreed. This is a big problem. But has the current system addressed that? Don't we have the same problem now? I was involved in a patent lawsuit, and it was all about who had more money, and I lost everything because I couldn't afford the legal battle, even though the plaintiff was a nasty troll with absurd patents. Whether you have a libertarian system or not this is a problem, and I'm in favor of creative solutions.

(09-12-2013 08:42 PM)shallwechat71 Wrote:  Why have a confusing set disclosures that all have a different set of base standards. Its like buying insurance: auto, health, home, busines etc . Every company has a set disclosures, just to a common person; its all confusing, if there was a standard set rules it would be more easier to compare. Id just rather be sure the car meet a minimum safe standard, and just have to comparison shop about a/c, PS, PB, MPG. Metallic paint,

Well imo you're putting life into the hands of civil servants, blindly believing that they are both capable of and motivated to look out for your interest over the corporations, even though they are bought by corporations. I suggest you go to the DMV and see how the civil servants treat the people and get back to me on this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 07:56 AM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2013 08:01 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(26-11-2013 09:59 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  Our subconscious class warfare. Toronto's mayor, obviously not poor, does stupid shit and people merely call him "a joke". Florida politician gets caught with cocaine, and will "get help". But when poor people have the same problems they are treated like dirt and become indentured slaves to paying lawyers and probation.

And the other aspect, I get accused of being a "loser" being college educated and a dishwasher while saying the same things famous atheists such as Ricky Gervais or Chistopher Hitchens.

It does not matter when I point out wealthy people whom try to do the right thing. It does not matter that I point out our secular roots. Poverty is a criminal offense in America. We are working hard to look like the same Caste system as India which is nothing we should aspire to be as a nation.

We are in total denial as a nation that we have a class of "untouchables". I want everyone in my poor class to have a quality education. I want everyone to have a livable wage. There is no excuse for a nation that has 57 trillion GDP to even have abject poverty. Japan has dishwashers and janitors too. But they do NOT have abject poverty and their "poor" are much better educated on average than our poor.

I also hate the meme's floating around showing poor in third world countries who have it worse. You do not help them by pulling that shit, nor do you help keep our poor from falling further down. Knowing I have it better does not mean we should have a race to the bottom. Humanity should want better for their fellow human.

For far too long we have allowed Corporate America dictate wages down to the point of mom and pop shops following suit. We have seen our wages stagnate while Wall Street keeps breaking records in profit. The workers HAVE the numbers even if the uber rich have the money. We do not want to end private business, we just want to live without being slaves to low wages. The more we the worker raise our voices, the sooner those at the top will have no choice but to listen. I encourage everyone reading this to raise your voices on all social media to these corporate bullies and demand that they stop squeezing the rest of us. If Moo Cluck Moo, COSTCO, and Trader Joe can pay better wages, all of you can.

I hear this argument a lot. It irks me not because of the content, but because of the hypocritical nature of those who use this "end poverty now" schpeal.

It's hypocritical because while you want to end poverty, you don't actually want to pay for it.

You (not you specifically, you in general) want your cheap iPads, affordable cars, cheap gas prices, affordable health care and anyone who earns an income greater than 5X yours *must* be cheating the system.

Those who bitch about spending cuts to welfare, Medicare and SS also bitch about increased taxes. You want all that stuff - so long as no one puts their hand in your pocket to get it. You want safe drugs, safe streets, and regulators watching Wall Street but again, you don't want to be the one to pay the surcharge in order to pay for that.

You get upset when Bankers get huge bonuses. Or CEOs make more money than the entry level worker.

Let me try to break this down using an example of how an employee can fuck its employer...it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it's something you all can relate to.

Imagine that you pay premiums for insurance. And you get hurt by a third party. Now you have to sue the third party to get compensated for your expenses, pain and suffering, and what have you.

You have to take the risk of trial. You pay $10,000 to doctor's testimony, witnesses to the actual event, lawyers fees and court fees, with zero guarantee that you will win.

Luckily, you do win. You get $300,000 awarded by a jury. Now...once your lawyer takes his/her cut, you are left with $200,000. Now, imagine after all that is said and done, the insurance company comes to you and says "we want our cut too." You already paid the premiums for said insurance. They did not front any money for legal expenses or the risk involved to take it to trial. You played your chips, no one else's.
And now you must pay another $100,000 because "we are all in this together"

In this case, the insurance company is your employees. You, are the plaintiff, and paid them premiums (salary) to do the work they were suppose to do. They want more, because you have more, but they didn't actually take on any risk to do that.

Running a business is a HUGE risk. Why should someone, who didn't share in that risk, reap the rewards of that? Sure, there are instances were one profits from another unfairly. That is not a rich/poor thing. That's a human thing. And it's not a one way road either, it's a 4 lane highway. The poor reap benefits and cheat systems as well. The poor can call the welfare taxi (an ambulance) for free instead of taking a $15 cab ride to the hospital. If I take an ambulance? $750.

Socialism doesn't work. If you need to understand the economics of incentive, I'll be happy to explain it. Socialism doesn't bring the underachievers up...it brings everyone down.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(10-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 09:59 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  Our subconscious class warfare. Toronto's mayor, obviously not poor, does stupid shit and people merely call him "a joke". Florida politician gets caught with cocaine, and will "get help". But when poor people have the same problems they are treated like dirt and become indentured slaves to paying lawyers and probation.

And the other aspect, I get accused of being a "loser" being college educated and a dishwasher while saying the same things famous atheists such as Ricky Gervais or Chistopher Hitchens.

It does not matter when I point out wealthy people whom try to do the right thing. It does not matter that I point out our secular roots. Poverty is a criminal offense in America. We are working hard to look like the same Caste system as India which is nothing we should aspire to be as a nation.

We are in total denial as a nation that we have a class of "untouchables". I want everyone in my poor class to have a quality education. I want everyone to have a livable wage. There is no excuse for a nation that has 57 trillion GDP to even have abject poverty. Japan has dishwashers and janitors too. But they do NOT have abject poverty and their "poor" are much better educated on average than our poor.

I also hate the meme's floating around showing poor in third world countries who have it worse. You do not help them by pulling that shit, nor do you help keep our poor from falling further down. Knowing I have it better does not mean we should have a race to the bottom. Humanity should want better for their fellow human.

For far too long we have allowed Corporate America dictate wages down to the point of mom and pop shops following suit. We have seen our wages stagnate while Wall Street keeps breaking records in profit. The workers HAVE the numbers even if the uber rich have the money. We do not want to end private business, we just want to live without being slaves to low wages. The more we the worker raise our voices, the sooner those at the top will have no choice but to listen. I encourage everyone reading this to raise your voices on all social media to these corporate bullies and demand that they stop squeezing the rest of us. If Moo Cluck Moo, COSTCO, and Trader Joe can pay better wages, all of you can.

I hear this argument a lot. It irks me not because of the content, but because of the hypocritical nature of those who use this "end poverty now" schpeal.

It's hypocritical because while you want to end poverty, you don't actually want to pay for it.

You (not you specifically, you in general) want your cheap iPads, affordable cars, cheap gas prices, affordable health care and anyone who earns an income greater than 5X yours *must* be cheating the system.

Those who bitch about spending cuts to welfare, Medicare and SS also bitch about increased taxes. You want all that stuff - so long as no one puts their hand in your pocket to get it. You want safe drugs, safe streets, and regulators watching Wall Street but again, you don't want to be the one to pay the surcharge in order to pay for that.

You get upset when Bankers get huge bonuses. Or CEOs make more money than the entry level worker.

Let me try to break this down using an example of how an employee can fuck its employer...it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it's something you all can relate to.

Imagine that you pay premiums for insurance. And you get hurt by a third party. Now you have to sue the third party to get compensated for your expenses, pain and suffering, and what have you.

You have to take the risk of trial. You pay $10,000 to doctor's testimony, witnesses to the actual event, lawyers fees and court fees, with zero guarantee that you will win.

Luckily, you do win. You get $300,000 awarded by a jury. Now...once your lawyer takes his/her cut, you are left with $200,000. Now, imagine after all that is said and done, the insurance company comes to you and says "we want our cut too." You already paid the premiums for said insurance. They did not front any money for legal expenses or the risk involved to take it to trial. You played your chips, no one else's.
And now you must pay another $100,000 because "we are all in this together"

In this case, the insurance company is your employees. You, are the plaintiff, and paid them premiums (salary) to do the work they were suppose to do. They want more, because you have more, but they didn't actually take on any risk to do that.

Running a business is a HUGE risk. Why should someone, who didn't share in that risk, reap the rewards of that? Sure, there are instances were one profits from another unfairly. That is not a rich/poor thing. That's a human thing. And it's not a one way road either, it's a 4 lane highway. The poor reap benefits and cheat systems as well. The poor can call the welfare taxi (an ambulance) for free instead of taking a $15 cab ride to the hospital. If I take an ambulance? $750.

Socialism doesn't work. If you need to understand the economics of incentive, I'll be happy to explain it. Socialism doesn't bring the underachievers up...it brings everyone down.

Your argument is rather poorly constructed. You in no way justified bankers' bonuses or CEOs' salaries. And you totally neglected profit sharing and bonuses as incentives to workers.

The question comes down to reasonable pay for workers, including CEOs.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 09:57 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(10-12-2013 08:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 07:56 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I hear this argument a lot. It irks me not because of the content, but because of the hypocritical nature of those who use this "end poverty now" schpeal.

It's hypocritical because while you want to end poverty, you don't actually want to pay for it.

You (not you specifically, you in general) want your cheap iPads, affordable cars, cheap gas prices, affordable health care and anyone who earns an income greater than 5X yours *must* be cheating the system.

Those who bitch about spending cuts to welfare, Medicare and SS also bitch about increased taxes. You want all that stuff - so long as no one puts their hand in your pocket to get it. You want safe drugs, safe streets, and regulators watching Wall Street but again, you don't want to be the one to pay the surcharge in order to pay for that.

You get upset when Bankers get huge bonuses. Or CEOs make more money than the entry level worker.

Let me try to break this down using an example of how an employee can fuck its employer...it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it's something you all can relate to.

Imagine that you pay premiums for insurance. And you get hurt by a third party. Now you have to sue the third party to get compensated for your expenses, pain and suffering, and what have you.

You have to take the risk of trial. You pay $10,000 to doctor's testimony, witnesses to the actual event, lawyers fees and court fees, with zero guarantee that you will win.

Luckily, you do win. You get $300,000 awarded by a jury. Now...once your lawyer takes his/her cut, you are left with $200,000. Now, imagine after all that is said and done, the insurance company comes to you and says "we want our cut too." You already paid the premiums for said insurance. They did not front any money for legal expenses or the risk involved to take it to trial. You played your chips, no one else's.
And now you must pay another $100,000 because "we are all in this together"

In this case, the insurance company is your employees. You, are the plaintiff, and paid them premiums (salary) to do the work they were suppose to do. They want more, because you have more, but they didn't actually take on any risk to do that.

Running a business is a HUGE risk. Why should someone, who didn't share in that risk, reap the rewards of that? Sure, there are instances were one profits from another unfairly. That is not a rich/poor thing. That's a human thing. And it's not a one way road either, it's a 4 lane highway. The poor reap benefits and cheat systems as well. The poor can call the welfare taxi (an ambulance) for free instead of taking a $15 cab ride to the hospital. If I take an ambulance? $750.

Socialism doesn't work. If you need to understand the economics of incentive, I'll be happy to explain it. Socialism doesn't bring the underachievers up...it brings everyone down.

Your argument is rather poorly constructed. You in no way justified bankers' bonuses or CEOs' salaries. And you totally neglected profit sharing and bonuses as incentives to workers.

The question comes down to reasonable pay for workers, including CEOs.

I don't justify banker's bonuses or CEO's salaries. The comparison is only that a CEO should not make what an entry level worker in that same company makes. Nor should they make a percentage below 300%.

I worked in the regulation industry. Specifically, I worked for FINRA. I can tell you, unequivocally, that these bankers work 20 hour days. Not an exaggeration. They should be compensated accordingly.

Yes, there is profit hearing and bonuses as incentives. But the post here was that we view those who are poor differently. That a rich person gets caught with crack, they need help. A poor person gets caught with crack, they need to go to jail.

I agree there, but the OP then launches into a tirade about how, with the GDP being what it is, how we can even have poverty to begin with. It must be because those evil bankers, CEOs, and corporations must not be sharing enough. We need more, have to do more, then hand the rich the bill when it comes due.


I was also pointing out that the OP appears to vilify the rich. Its ironic to decry one vilification, only to make another.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: Poverty is a criminal offense in America OP/ED.
(10-12-2013 09:57 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 08:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your argument is rather poorly constructed. You in no way justified bankers' bonuses or CEOs' salaries. And you totally neglected profit sharing and bonuses as incentives to workers.

The question comes down to reasonable pay for workers, including CEOs.

I don't justify banker's bonuses or CEO's salaries. The comparison is only that a CEO should not make what an entry level worker in that same company makes. Nor should they make a percentage below 300%.

I worked in the regulation industry. Specifically, I worked for FINRA. I can tell you, unequivocally, that these bankers work 20 hour days. Not an exaggeration. They should be compensated accordingly.

Yes, there is profit hearing and bonuses as incentives. But the post here was that we view those who are poor differently. That a rich person gets caught with crack, they need help. A poor person gets caught with crack, they need to go to jail.

I agree there, but the OP then launches into a tirade about how, with the GDP being what it is, how we can even have poverty to begin with. It must be because those evil bankers, CEOs, and corporations must not be sharing enough. We need more, have to do more, then hand the rich the bill when it comes due.


I was also pointing out that the OP appears to vilify the rich. Its ironic to decry one vilification, only to make another.

Yeah because vulture capitalism is not the cause of most of our problems these days. The wealth gap is approaching the point that the rich will have to either agree that 1000% the average workers salary is too much and start giving some back or face armed rebellion. There is already a rent crisis in this country and there is a food crisis not too far off. Both are ridiculous and caused by people who give little or nothing back to the system they and their families have exploited for generations. The system as it is right now is untenable and the only solutions are either a drastic change in how wealth flows or the people on the bottom go out and redistribute the wealth themselves. It has happened before and will do so again if the conditions reach a crisis point.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: