Author Topic: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution  (Read 6114 times)

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2013, 11:00:44 AM »
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is an accurate portrayal of "Conservatives and Liberals."   :wink:

Great stuff for Comedy Central.  :pirate:

Offline mykcob4

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2013, 11:59:25 AM »
The fact is that the display by some including the "whit" is not at all realistic. What it is is FOX propaganda. Portraying Liberals as people that want to legislate against beef producers because those particular Liberals are vegetarian is just a flat out lie.
Conservatives don't like ANY laws unless those laws oppress minoroties and the poor.
Government is necessary for society. Why conservatives hate government is because the government makes sure (as best it can) to insure equal opportunity for all illregardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture, looks, age, nation of origin, size, belief, and all the different demographics that make up that society.

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2013, 12:50:43 PM »
mykcob4 wrote in part:
Quote
The fact is that the display by some including the "whit" is not at all realistic.
Include your own displays as well.  Then I'll agree.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
Quote
What it is is FOX propaganda.What it is is FOX propaganda.
I wouldn't know, I never watch Fox.  Or ABC, or CBS, or NBC, or CNN.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
Quote
Portraying Liberals as people that want to legislate against beef producers because those particular Liberals are vegetarian is just a flat out lie.
Portraying Conservatives as people that just don't care about the poor is a flat out lie.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
Quote
Conservatives don't like ANY laws unless those laws oppress minoroties and the poor.
See the above answer.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
Quote
Government is necessary for society.
Some government is necessary for society.  Too much government is a tyranny.  The trick is keeping it somewhere between an anarchy and a tyranny.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
Quote
Why conservatives hate government is because the government makes sure (as best it can) to insure equal opportunity for all illregardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture, looks, age, nation of origin, size, belief, and all the different demographics that make up that society.
For starters, that is a pipe-dream.  For two, the US government has always been for the rich.  For three, if government is for the racial equality, why did they enforce Jim-crow laws?  Why do blacks even today get longer jail sentences than whites who commit the same crimes?  If it is for equality, why do men and women often have different standards to qualify for a given job?  Why does the military require people to be able to pass a test in English in order for them to get in?  Why can't I go back into the military because I am too old?

Why is it liberals don't want true equality, they want favoritism for their select few?  Conservatives want a color-blind society which doesn't take the differences which the liberals seem so concerned about, and establish more of a meritocracy where the best can rise to the top and bring the rest along.

The point being, while you bitch about Fox propaganda, you seem to willing buy the Democrat propaganda hook-line and sinker.  Instead of allowing yourself to be led around by the nose by Democrat politicians, shouldn't you be able to decide for yourself which policies make the most sense?  And how can you know which policies make the most sense, if you refuse to consider any of the polices not originating from the Democrats?

Just something to think about.  :-k

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2013, 12:57:35 PM »
???  ??

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #49 on: September 14, 2013, 02:11:50 PM »
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"

mykcob4 wrote in part:
Quote
Government is necessary for society.
Some government is necessary for society.  Too much government is a tyranny.  The trick is keeping it somewhere between an anarchy and a tyranny.

That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?

Offline Colanth

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2013, 02:34:46 PM »
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Quote from: "Colanth"
In the real world there's no "balance" - 98% of the people choose cost.  Why do you think Walmart is the world's most successful retailer?  Quality?
It helps people free up money for more valuable uses...
Please put the goal posts back where you found them.

Quote
Quote from: "Colanth"
National defense?  We don't count cost, or look at quality, when the nation is attacked.
An individual human life has no equivalent.  But that is not to say that nothing can be ranked with, let alone outrank, a human life.
But when it's a matter of the entire country, nothing *IS* ranked above defense.  (Not by countries that continue to exist.  We call countries that put other things above defense, "losers".)

Quote
The French government knows that each year several drivers lose their lives because of the beautiful roadside avenues of trees, yet they do not cut them down.  Even aesthetic pleasure is (rightly) allowed to outrank a certain number of human lives.
What does that have to do with national defense?  Please, you'll wear out the wheels on the goal posts.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #51 on: September 14, 2013, 03:59:43 PM »
josephpalazzo asked:
Quote
That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Although he quoted me, it would be interesting to see what others have to say about this question too.  

My answer would be to regulate the trading houses and the Federal Reserve.

For example, we have sales taxes in most states and the federal government is currently debating a national sales tax.  Why is it that Wall Street isn't taxed on trades?  A proposal of a 1/4% tax on trades was proposed at one time, but it never got enough traction to ever even be put up for a vote.  If my memory serves me correctly.  If people have to pay sales tax to buy clothes, why are the Wall Streeter's getting away with not having to pay any taxes on their trades?  They are selling things which are not essential to life, yet they get away not being taxed on it.  A sales tax may have the effect of slowing down trades, which would help to stabilize industry.  And raise money for the government.

The Federal Reserve regulates itself through its' board of directors.  One seat is for an appointee from the government.  The rest of the board are appointees from the major banks.  The government appointee usually comes from the banking industry and goes back to the banking industry when their term is up.  We have the fox guarding the henhouse.  Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?

Because the government worries about the type of toilet seat Ma and Pa Kettle have in their general store, rather than regulating the Fed and Wall Street, we end up with the tyranny of a plutarchy.  Which is what the idea to was to begin with, we were just told differently.  When conservatives, libertarians and the like say they want less regulation, they are talking about for the small business's which might be able to compete with the big publicly traded business's, if they weren't shaken down for trivalities.

Another thing which annoys me, is who appointed the US to be policeman to the world?  While I understand the CIA which answers to the plutarchy who want insure the large multinational corporations can throw military might around when they want to, I don't see how it really benefits me and other average Americans.  We just to get to pay for some rich assholes bilking a foreign country while using our people and money to do it.

I could go on, but I don't want to write a book.

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #52 on: September 14, 2013, 04:50:29 PM »
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"
josephpalazzo asked:
Quote
That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Although he quoted me, it would be interesting to see what others have to say about this question too.  

My answer would be to regulate the trading houses and the Federal Reserve.

For example, we have sales taxes in most states and the federal government is currently debating a national sales tax.  Why is it that Wall Street isn't taxed on trades?  A proposal of a 1/4% tax on trades was proposed at one time, but it never got enough traction to ever even be put up for a vote.  If my memory serves me correctly.  If people have to pay sales tax to buy clothes, why are the Wall Streeter's getting away with not having to pay any taxes on their trades?  They are selling things which are not essential to life, yet they get away not being taxed on it.  A sales tax may have the effect of slowing down trades, which would help to stabilize industry. And raise money for the government.

You have one party totally dedicated to raise not even one penny in taxes, which BTW, is the same party who wants less government. So that idea would be nixed from the get-go.

Quote
The Federal Reserve regulates itself through its' board of directors.  One seat is for an appointee from the government.  The rest of the board are appointees from the major banks.  The government appointee usually comes from the banking industry and goes back to the banking industry when their term is up.  We have the fox guarding the henhouse.  Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?

There would be a problem if any of them would break the law. That they come from the banking industry ensures they have some relevant competency. Otherwise having someone who doesn't understand the industry would invite real trouble.

Quote
Because the government worries about the type of toilet seat Ma and Pa Kettle have in their general store, rather than regulating the Fed and Wall Street, we end up with the tyranny of a plutarchy.  Which is what the idea to was to begin with, we were just told differently.  When conservatives, libertarians and the like say they want less regulation, they are talking about for the small business's which might be able to compete with the big publicly traded business's, if they weren't shaken down for trivalities.

Yes but less regulation is translated as less regulation for Wall Street by the GOP, the very same industry you want to tax more, and which the GOP won't go for.

Quote
Another thing which annoys me, is who appointed the US to be policeman to the world?  While I understand the CIA which answers to the plutarchy who want insure the large multinational corporations can throw military might around when they want to, I don't see how it really benefits me and other average Americans.  We just to get to pay for some rich assholes bilking a foreign country while using our people and money to do it.

I could go on, but I don't want to write a book.

The problem here is that nature abhors a vacuum. If the US opt out, then you'll get China and Russia filling in the vacuum. Do you really want these countries policing the high seas? I can guarantee you that their decisions won't be in favor of free trade or even fair trade.

Offline mykcob4

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2013, 05:05:59 PM »
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"

mykcob4 wrote in part:
Quote
Government is necessary for society.
Some government is necessary for society.  Too much government is a tyranny.  The trick is keeping it somewhere between an anarchy and a tyranny.

That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Of course I do. I think if the government would actually enforce many laws that are just flat out ignored then the desparity would close. The SEC has been gutted. Monopoly enforcement is a complete joke. Labor laws don't exist anymore. Bank regulation never happens. As far as illegal aliens goes, the only reason we have such a large number of illegals is because business hires them. They pay them cash, don't report them, don't provide medical care, etc....!
Just enforcing a few of the laws that already exist would certainly end a great deal of the corrupt corporate monopoly criminality.

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #54 on: September 14, 2013, 05:53:44 PM »
Quote from: "mykcob4"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"



That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Of course I do. I think if the government would actually enforce many laws that are just flat out ignored then the desparity would close. The SEC has been gutted. Monopoly enforcement is a complete joke. Labor laws don't exist anymore. Bank regulation never happens. As far as illegal aliens goes, the only reason we have such a large number of illegals is because business hires them. They pay them cash, don't report them, don't provide medical care, etc....!
Just enforcing a few of the laws that already exist would certainly end a great deal of the corrupt corporate monopoly criminality.

To do all that you would need to hire lots of people. A rough estimate would require $50billions per year. The GOP is threathening to close down the government if it doesn't cut an additional $10 billions from the budget. What you want is not going to happen.

Edit: Sorry, there was one too many zeroes: should read $5billions/year.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 06:21:46 PM by josephpalazzo »

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #55 on: September 14, 2013, 06:15:01 PM »
josephpalazzo asked:
Quote
That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
josephpalazzo, you put down the not only my suggestions, but mkcob4's as well.  It seems you are saying, either nothing can be done, or it can't be done because the GOP won't allow it, so why try?

Can we hear the answer you have for your question?

BTW, good answer mkcob4.  I liked it.   =D>

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2013, 06:27:20 PM »
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"
josephpalazzo asked:
Quote
That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
josephpalazzo, you put down the not only my suggestions, but mkcob4's as well.  It seems you are saying, either nothing can be done, or it can't be done because the GOP won't allow it, so why try?

Can we hear the answer you have for your question?

In one post, I wrote:
Quote
True, but in time big money always finds itself buying the politicians. And in large part, the citizenry is not vigilant to thwart that. Most people are complacent until all hell breaks loose, and then they take to the streets. By then, it's either repression or a breakdown of fabrics that used to make up that society. History abounds with riots and revolutions. We're not going to change human nature. Most people don't give a damn until their little corner is turned upside down.

In another, this:
Quote
Third parties in the US don't fare well. And the judiciary is mostly in the hands of big corporations. The system is so rigged that there is little chance it can ever be reformed.

That pretty much says what I think.

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #57 on: September 14, 2013, 09:53:46 PM »
josephpalazzo, that's what I thought you were getting at.  But, for a minute there, I thought you were agreeing with the political pundits.  

I pretty much agree with josephpalazzo's assessment.  We are at the mercies of the plutarchy.  I do think there are ways to turn things around, but they won't be done.  Still, it is kind of fun to try to think of ways to improve the country and the world in general.  Even if there is no real chance of actually implementing our ideas.

Offline mykcob4

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2013, 12:18:09 AM »
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "mykcob4"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"



That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Of course I do. I think if the government would actually enforce many laws that are just flat out ignored then the desparity would close. The SEC has been gutted. Monopoly enforcement is a complete joke. Labor laws don't exist anymore. Bank regulation never happens. As far as illegal aliens goes, the only reason we have such a large number of illegals is because business hires them. They pay them cash, don't report them, don't provide medical care, etc....!
Just enforcing a few of the laws that already exist would certainly end a great deal of the corrupt corporate monopoly criminality.

To do all that you would need to hire lots of people. A rough estimate would require $50billions per year. The GOP is threathening to close down the government if it doesn't cut an additional $10 billions from the budget. What you want is not going to happen.

Edit: Sorry, there was one too many zeroes: should read $5billions/year.
We wouldn't have to hire anymore at all. We only have to enforce the laws as they are on the books. That means utilizing the people that are already employeed to do the jobs that they were hired to do!
And FUCK the GOP. The reason those laws aren't enforced in the first place is the GOP.

Offline Plu

Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2013, 07:19:28 AM »
Quote
We wouldn't have to hire anymore at all. We only have to enforce the laws as they are on the books. That means utilizing the people that are already employeed to do the jobs that they were hired to do!

This assumes that there are many people who are literally twiddling their thumbs, and that such includes all the people whose job is to make sure other people do their job.

If that's the case, you have a much bigger problem that you think you have.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk