-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Opinions on Kerry
- Thread starter NeoCortex
- Start date
- Status
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
bcgeib: No offence taken. It's really great how everyone's trying to debate on issue and principle, not emotion. Seriously, this is good guys.
No, of course the president didn't do anything personally to make my father lose his job (Aside: 6 months after being laidoff, he founded his own company and is now the CEO, with million-dollar contracts comming in!) or directly cause 9/11. But, in the final analysis, these events did occur under his watch, and he will have to say something for it if he wants to be reelected.
The point is though, "The Buck Stops Here." Bush can pass off the blame (ex. CIA intelligence failures) to others, but at the end of the day he is at the top of the pyramid, and has to answer for it.
The Kyoto Treaty would cut down on the harmful greenhouse gas emissions. I believe over 160 countries have so far signed it. Yes, we are one of the largest industrialized nations, but we should be leading the way on this key global health issue, not following the pack.
About the CEOs and their paychecks: Again, I have nothing against the 'up by their bootstraps' industry leaders making money. Capitalism is good, no doubt about that. The problem exists when those CEOs outsource jobs to third-world countries and pay children cents on the day to make their products in harmful working conditions, while the company executives and board members make millions. The lowly person who actually does the work gets shafted. It just doesn't seem right to me.
About Government's Role: I think bunk 22 and Fly Navy were the main writers on this one.
Guys, for this I refer you to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, "...in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare..."
Did I miss something here? It seems to be right there in the preamble, the essence of what our government is supposed to be.
Sorry I couldn't go line-by-line a la bcgeib (really, great post!) but I've got some homework to finish up.
No, of course the president didn't do anything personally to make my father lose his job (Aside: 6 months after being laidoff, he founded his own company and is now the CEO, with million-dollar contracts comming in!) or directly cause 9/11. But, in the final analysis, these events did occur under his watch, and he will have to say something for it if he wants to be reelected.
The point is though, "The Buck Stops Here." Bush can pass off the blame (ex. CIA intelligence failures) to others, but at the end of the day he is at the top of the pyramid, and has to answer for it.
The Kyoto Treaty would cut down on the harmful greenhouse gas emissions. I believe over 160 countries have so far signed it. Yes, we are one of the largest industrialized nations, but we should be leading the way on this key global health issue, not following the pack.
About the CEOs and their paychecks: Again, I have nothing against the 'up by their bootstraps' industry leaders making money. Capitalism is good, no doubt about that. The problem exists when those CEOs outsource jobs to third-world countries and pay children cents on the day to make their products in harmful working conditions, while the company executives and board members make millions. The lowly person who actually does the work gets shafted. It just doesn't seem right to me.
About Government's Role: I think bunk 22 and Fly Navy were the main writers on this one.
Guys, for this I refer you to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, "...in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare..."
Did I miss something here? It seems to be right there in the preamble, the essence of what our government is supposed to be.
Sorry I couldn't go line-by-line a la bcgeib (really, great post!) but I've got some homework to finish up.
It's of my understanding that the average person realizes that 9/11 didn't just magically happen under Bush's watch. And this is coming from someone that grew up in the North and only recently moved South in July.
Of those 160 nations that signed the Kyoto treaty, how many of them are major industrialized nations with huge national production? You do realize that huge, sweeping environmental policies that we see nowadays do nothing but further the Greenies cause and destroy industry. The whole deal with the arsenic legislation and Bush was total crap. They made him look like a villian who wanted to poison the people. Thanks liberal media.
Well, maybe if unions would stop making outrageous demands on management, the situation would be better for outsourcing. Believe me, I'm not a fan of it either, especially in aerospace (are they DUMB?), but there is a reason for it. This is coming from someone who was part of a union at one time.
Promote the general welfare does not mean give my money to someone who didn't earn it and let them be a leech. It means the government shouldn't stiffle the people with excessive tax, with excessive laws, should encourage free enterprise, etc. Should help be given to certain people? Yeah sure. For a limited time and to limited cases. Then they're on their own.
Look at your own state to see how successful social programs are. California is a mess, it is in worse shape than virtually all the other states in the union combined. For heaven's sake, there was a vote about allowing illegal aliens to get driver's licenses. This is the product of a welfare state that uses the government to fix society.
Of those 160 nations that signed the Kyoto treaty, how many of them are major industrialized nations with huge national production? You do realize that huge, sweeping environmental policies that we see nowadays do nothing but further the Greenies cause and destroy industry. The whole deal with the arsenic legislation and Bush was total crap. They made him look like a villian who wanted to poison the people. Thanks liberal media.
Well, maybe if unions would stop making outrageous demands on management, the situation would be better for outsourcing. Believe me, I'm not a fan of it either, especially in aerospace (are they DUMB?), but there is a reason for it. This is coming from someone who was part of a union at one time.
Promote the general welfare does not mean give my money to someone who didn't earn it and let them be a leech. It means the government shouldn't stiffle the people with excessive tax, with excessive laws, should encourage free enterprise, etc. Should help be given to certain people? Yeah sure. For a limited time and to limited cases. Then they're on their own.
Look at your own state to see how successful social programs are. California is a mess, it is in worse shape than virtually all the other states in the union combined. For heaven's sake, there was a vote about allowing illegal aliens to get driver's licenses. This is the product of a welfare state that uses the government to fix society.
46Driver
"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
There is nothing wrong with helping people out - HOWEVER, when people start taking advantage of the system for generations and living off of it, then there is a SERIOUS problem that needs to be fixed. Somebody needs to turn off the tap and tell the freeloaders its time to fish or cut bait.
To revisit the welfare issue:
I agree with Edwards when he says that we as the richest nation in the world, have a moral obligation to help the poor. I for one, believe that I got where I am with some tribulations, they don't just give EGAs away, and so I am not advocating any give-aways.
Regarding some of those cited examples of absurd welfare programs, I have trouble believing that the government helps subsidize luxury town homes, but I do agree that reform and incentive programs need to be redressed.
And regarding Atlas Shrugged (I read that some time ago... took me a while). I do not believe that supporting welfare means living life vicariously or for other people. It's a matter of providing people a second chance to succeed, and cutting a break for people in downward spirals.
Say some kids made a poor decision and had a kid at 16. I would prefer that the community subsidized their child's cost of living for a few years to let the parents finish school and get a decent job then for the whole family to stay in a rut and the child grow up without proper parenting.
I know it's easy to say, "they made the mistake and why is it my problem?" to a faceless family. But that is what social welfare programs are designed for, not to subsidize laziness as it may sometimes seem and that's a shame.
just my two cents,
-itoh
I agree with Edwards when he says that we as the richest nation in the world, have a moral obligation to help the poor. I for one, believe that I got where I am with some tribulations, they don't just give EGAs away, and so I am not advocating any give-aways.
Regarding some of those cited examples of absurd welfare programs, I have trouble believing that the government helps subsidize luxury town homes, but I do agree that reform and incentive programs need to be redressed.
And regarding Atlas Shrugged (I read that some time ago... took me a while). I do not believe that supporting welfare means living life vicariously or for other people. It's a matter of providing people a second chance to succeed, and cutting a break for people in downward spirals.
Say some kids made a poor decision and had a kid at 16. I would prefer that the community subsidized their child's cost of living for a few years to let the parents finish school and get a decent job then for the whole family to stay in a rut and the child grow up without proper parenting.
I know it's easy to say, "they made the mistake and why is it my problem?" to a faceless family. But that is what social welfare programs are designed for, not to subsidize laziness as it may sometimes seem and that's a shame.
just my two cents,
-itoh
Or that 16 year old stays on that welfare for as long as she can, because she knows it will keep coming, because I mean, what heartless person would ever stop the flow of money to her, she's so unfortunate. You're right, it's tough when kids are involved, it makes the matter more complex. There is no doubt about that. But at the same time, I grew up around it, and so have many others, and we've seen some pretty rotten people.
Yeah, Atlas Shrugged took me a while too. About 4 months, but I also stopped reading a couple times due to API and such.
Is there a moral obligation to help the poor? Maybe. But it shouldn't be goverment mandated, by any means. Some of you seem so fond of the government taking your money and giving it to the poor. Well fine, then you can volunteer that money. Me, I'd rather give it to Toys for Tots, at least they do something with it. Heck, if I could determine where my money went, it'd go to NASA and Defense.
Do not punish the successful for being successful. Do not punish the rich for being rich. Having 20 million dollars is no more moral than having 50 million dollars. There is no morality there. If you earned it, you earned it. (there are extremes, I mean, baseball players in my opinion don't earn 20 million dollar salaries, but hey, if the Yankees can pay it...)
There is a quote that says something along the lines of (paraphrasing here): "Democracies are fine, until the people realize they can vote themselves more money. Then they destroy themselves." That's the idea of the quote, I wish I had the real one, it's a little longer I think. I can't remember who said it either. But you should get the idea.
Earning your money used to mean something. Living like a leech was regarded as terrible. Now, it's accepted. Makes you go hmmmmmmmm.
The economy of a single-term Presidency really can not be tied to that Presidency. Even Democrats know this, they just pretend that they don't. Bush (41) economy was a boom from Reagan. Even Clinton's economy was still an after effect of Reagan. Bush (43) inherited the downfall of Clinton's economy. This is how it has been for a long time. Our economy reacts slowly, especially to growth. It can crash in a flash, but growth takes time.
Yeah, Atlas Shrugged took me a while too. About 4 months, but I also stopped reading a couple times due to API and such.
Is there a moral obligation to help the poor? Maybe. But it shouldn't be goverment mandated, by any means. Some of you seem so fond of the government taking your money and giving it to the poor. Well fine, then you can volunteer that money. Me, I'd rather give it to Toys for Tots, at least they do something with it. Heck, if I could determine where my money went, it'd go to NASA and Defense.
Do not punish the successful for being successful. Do not punish the rich for being rich. Having 20 million dollars is no more moral than having 50 million dollars. There is no morality there. If you earned it, you earned it. (there are extremes, I mean, baseball players in my opinion don't earn 20 million dollar salaries, but hey, if the Yankees can pay it...)
There is a quote that says something along the lines of (paraphrasing here): "Democracies are fine, until the people realize they can vote themselves more money. Then they destroy themselves." That's the idea of the quote, I wish I had the real one, it's a little longer I think. I can't remember who said it either. But you should get the idea.
Earning your money used to mean something. Living like a leech was regarded as terrible. Now, it's accepted. Makes you go hmmmmmmmm.
The economy of a single-term Presidency really can not be tied to that Presidency. Even Democrats know this, they just pretend that they don't. Bush (41) economy was a boom from Reagan. Even Clinton's economy was still an after effect of Reagan. Bush (43) inherited the downfall of Clinton's economy. This is how it has been for a long time. Our economy reacts slowly, especially to growth. It can crash in a flash, but growth takes time.
What the what the what?
I don't understand liberal, conservative, nor do I care about labels. Here is some stuff I want to run by, though.
Can someone please explain to me how the wealthy are punished? Guess how rich people Become rich?.. FROM OTHER PEOPLE. You don't get rich by printing $65 billion dollars in currency. No, you use 'business' to get an average of $65 from a billion people. Money that shifts to the rich must have once belonged to the now poor(er) people.
Right now, the middle class supports 27% of the revenue that comes in from taxes, and lets say that the rich support 70%. (So for every dollar that comes in from taxes, 70 cents came in from the richest 1%, lets pretend.)
That's PERFECTLY SANE!
Now, pretend that the rules changed. The rich's income over 1 million a year would be taxed at NINETY percent (Crazy, right?) This means that now of course almost all of the taxes, like 99% would be paid for by the rich, instead of 70%. Is this still fair? YES. Why? Because there is no god given right to be 1,000,000x richer than your neighbor. People who work hard, or lick rump to get to the 'top', or were born into it, all of who had some luck, still should not be that rich, it screws up the economy. All that money is sitting in gold bars, not helping the economy and not being used by those people because they die before the money is spent. The middle class still adds in the same value in dollars $$ to the country tax system, but now the rich class is taxed at 90% above 1 million, so now the government has double or triple the money every year it had before. And the rich are still millionaires.
But what happens with that new money? Schools get rebuilt, the government pays for all instituations including harvard for everybody, rich or poor, making it so that actual HARD working people can afford it, not just the richest. All of a sudden ,everybody is equal and although not everybody is that smart to actual make use of education, there will still be a half a million students or so who would take advantage of the resources to become better at a sport, or get tutored, and feel like they have a future, and all of a sudden, we have educated people.
People who become self-aware, and understand nutrition instead of buying red fruity cereal with a bird who talks to the buyers and tricks them into spending their money on that sugar. And understand that they don't have to spend money to look like movie stars, because they will know that movie stars are just overpampered idolized bunch of individuals for the purpose of the consumer to look up to so that they can be associated with products to sell to consumers. All of a sudden, all these rich people's thievery disappears. No marketing tricks work on the consumer, the consumers start caring about exercise instead of the TV, and all the food industry which depends on sugar and TV and all the movie stars and every other overpaid person is removed from memory and people enjoy interacting with each other once again.
Hard workers still are rich, but the rich aren't so horribly rich any more that they can control the economy. My point? Rich people just tricked their fellow humans who they call CONSUMERS to feed them stuff they don't need and devise every marketing and advertising and psychological trick into taking people's money as fast as possible instead of making the best product, such as one that will work forever. Rich people aren't the hardest working, they are just the greediest. And if you want to prove me wrong, ask them to donate 90% of their income to charities, etc. Oh wait, they're not in for the money but don't want to part? Even though they'll still be 1000x as rich as others? Ooops. Look their money came from swinding others and there is no way they are giving it up. Though here, swindling people into buying stuff they don't need is called marketing, psychology, advertising, etc. Sex, Fear, Making yourself attractive to the opposite sex, making yourself feel good, making yourself look smart to other people, and other things are all known marketing gimmicks into making you want to buy stuff. You are tricked!
With educated people that would come about from REAL EQUALITY, where there are rich millionaires but the non-rich are still very educated from the resources that are available, that would be true equality. And current rich people wouldn't want that to happen. but the point is that THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE ARE NOT THE MILLIONAIRES. Hard working people are everywhere, and I would say most of the middle class is hard working as well. It's not fair to say that only hard working people become millionaires, or that all hard working people become millionaires and the non-millionaires are just not working hard. or are dumb. Because you forget the whole point of making hella money--greed. An actual non-greedy person would not be rich because if they inherited millions they could prove others wrong, that they aren't greedy about money, by giving it away, right?
So no, I don't want to hear that any human deserves billions of dollars that he will never spend that could go back into the public and actually have every dollar be used.
And hey, imagine all colleges including privates had to be 100% funded by the government, and take people only by merit, not by contributions (that would be outlawed.) THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO EQUALITY. And when the k-12 schools are fixed and teaching is the hot job, and all schools have good teachers, and everybody is educated including those from the boonies, THAT WILL BE EQUALITY. When everybody has the same resources their whole life. THEN you can say, that person who is richer? He is a hard worker. THat poor person is lazy. Etc. But right now, you cannot make any judgement either way. So don't fool yourself and think the richer people work harder. Actually, they work easier.
I don't understand liberal, conservative, nor do I care about labels. Here is some stuff I want to run by, though.
Can someone please explain to me how the wealthy are punished? Guess how rich people Become rich?.. FROM OTHER PEOPLE. You don't get rich by printing $65 billion dollars in currency. No, you use 'business' to get an average of $65 from a billion people. Money that shifts to the rich must have once belonged to the now poor(er) people.
Right now, the middle class supports 27% of the revenue that comes in from taxes, and lets say that the rich support 70%. (So for every dollar that comes in from taxes, 70 cents came in from the richest 1%, lets pretend.)
That's PERFECTLY SANE!
Now, pretend that the rules changed. The rich's income over 1 million a year would be taxed at NINETY percent (Crazy, right?) This means that now of course almost all of the taxes, like 99% would be paid for by the rich, instead of 70%. Is this still fair? YES. Why? Because there is no god given right to be 1,000,000x richer than your neighbor. People who work hard, or lick rump to get to the 'top', or were born into it, all of who had some luck, still should not be that rich, it screws up the economy. All that money is sitting in gold bars, not helping the economy and not being used by those people because they die before the money is spent. The middle class still adds in the same value in dollars $$ to the country tax system, but now the rich class is taxed at 90% above 1 million, so now the government has double or triple the money every year it had before. And the rich are still millionaires.
But what happens with that new money? Schools get rebuilt, the government pays for all instituations including harvard for everybody, rich or poor, making it so that actual HARD working people can afford it, not just the richest. All of a sudden ,everybody is equal and although not everybody is that smart to actual make use of education, there will still be a half a million students or so who would take advantage of the resources to become better at a sport, or get tutored, and feel like they have a future, and all of a sudden, we have educated people.
People who become self-aware, and understand nutrition instead of buying red fruity cereal with a bird who talks to the buyers and tricks them into spending their money on that sugar. And understand that they don't have to spend money to look like movie stars, because they will know that movie stars are just overpampered idolized bunch of individuals for the purpose of the consumer to look up to so that they can be associated with products to sell to consumers. All of a sudden, all these rich people's thievery disappears. No marketing tricks work on the consumer, the consumers start caring about exercise instead of the TV, and all the food industry which depends on sugar and TV and all the movie stars and every other overpaid person is removed from memory and people enjoy interacting with each other once again.
Hard workers still are rich, but the rich aren't so horribly rich any more that they can control the economy. My point? Rich people just tricked their fellow humans who they call CONSUMERS to feed them stuff they don't need and devise every marketing and advertising and psychological trick into taking people's money as fast as possible instead of making the best product, such as one that will work forever. Rich people aren't the hardest working, they are just the greediest. And if you want to prove me wrong, ask them to donate 90% of their income to charities, etc. Oh wait, they're not in for the money but don't want to part? Even though they'll still be 1000x as rich as others? Ooops. Look their money came from swinding others and there is no way they are giving it up. Though here, swindling people into buying stuff they don't need is called marketing, psychology, advertising, etc. Sex, Fear, Making yourself attractive to the opposite sex, making yourself feel good, making yourself look smart to other people, and other things are all known marketing gimmicks into making you want to buy stuff. You are tricked!
With educated people that would come about from REAL EQUALITY, where there are rich millionaires but the non-rich are still very educated from the resources that are available, that would be true equality. And current rich people wouldn't want that to happen. but the point is that THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE ARE NOT THE MILLIONAIRES. Hard working people are everywhere, and I would say most of the middle class is hard working as well. It's not fair to say that only hard working people become millionaires, or that all hard working people become millionaires and the non-millionaires are just not working hard. or are dumb. Because you forget the whole point of making hella money--greed. An actual non-greedy person would not be rich because if they inherited millions they could prove others wrong, that they aren't greedy about money, by giving it away, right?
So no, I don't want to hear that any human deserves billions of dollars that he will never spend that could go back into the public and actually have every dollar be used.
And hey, imagine all colleges including privates had to be 100% funded by the government, and take people only by merit, not by contributions (that would be outlawed.) THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO EQUALITY. And when the k-12 schools are fixed and teaching is the hot job, and all schools have good teachers, and everybody is educated including those from the boonies, THAT WILL BE EQUALITY. When everybody has the same resources their whole life. THEN you can say, that person who is richer? He is a hard worker. THat poor person is lazy. Etc. But right now, you cannot make any judgement either way. So don't fool yourself and think the richer people work harder. Actually, they work easier.
Do not punish the rich for being rich. Having 20 million dollars is no more moral than having 50 million dollars.
I disagree with that, as every dollar that comes into somebody's hand CAME FROM SOME ONE ELSE'S HAND who was tricked into giving it by a lack of education and confidense in themselves and understanding of marketing and advertising tricks, and from peer pressure. The company didn't just print $50 million $1 dollar bills. So YES, if that guy 'only' has 20 million dollars, and he gives up $30,000,000 cash back to the public WHERE HE GOT IT FROM, THOSE MILLIONS WILL ACTUALLY BE USED INSTEAD OF SITTING UNUSED. SO yes there is a bid difference. It's like you play poker and 20 people bring $1 to the pot. Then, 1 guy gets $14 from several good draws in a row (or even if he's a legitimate good player, doesn't change my point). So that guy puts away 14 dollars and only 6 dollars is left for people to play with. Everybody goes home with 1 guy having 14 dollars and others leaving with a quarter. Thoe guys live their lives on a quarter, and could have had an enjoyable life with food and sports and etc if htey only had 30 cents. The rich guy has 14 dollars and he spends reachily, but only spends $3 dollars, or 12x as much as the others spend in their lifetime. THATS $11 dollars that sat and DID NOTHING. The guy died the others died. But he never even used it up, so did that money trickle down to others? NO HE NEVER BOUGHT ANYTHING WITH IT. So his exorbitant lifestyle cost $3, while the others could have had a VERY VERY NICE ONE for .50, something everybody would want and not need the exorbitant lifstyle. So if .20c x 19 = 4 dollars of that $11 dollars goes back into the public (the public being whoever is involved in the economy) they could have hell of a lives. You see? Everybody has money that is shifted around, and somebody born tomorrow is not lazy if most of the money is in rich people's hands and not the economy. How are those people not hard working? I mean how are they supposed to catch up?
I disagree with that, as every dollar that comes into somebody's hand CAME FROM SOME ONE ELSE'S HAND who was tricked into giving it by a lack of education and confidense in themselves and understanding of marketing and advertising tricks, and from peer pressure. The company didn't just print $50 million $1 dollar bills. So YES, if that guy 'only' has 20 million dollars, and he gives up $30,000,000 cash back to the public WHERE HE GOT IT FROM, THOSE MILLIONS WILL ACTUALLY BE USED INSTEAD OF SITTING UNUSED. SO yes there is a bid difference. It's like you play poker and 20 people bring $1 to the pot. Then, 1 guy gets $14 from several good draws in a row (or even if he's a legitimate good player, doesn't change my point). So that guy puts away 14 dollars and only 6 dollars is left for people to play with. Everybody goes home with 1 guy having 14 dollars and others leaving with a quarter. Thoe guys live their lives on a quarter, and could have had an enjoyable life with food and sports and etc if htey only had 30 cents. The rich guy has 14 dollars and he spends reachily, but only spends $3 dollars, or 12x as much as the others spend in their lifetime. THATS $11 dollars that sat and DID NOTHING. The guy died the others died. But he never even used it up, so did that money trickle down to others? NO HE NEVER BOUGHT ANYTHING WITH IT. So his exorbitant lifestyle cost $3, while the others could have had a VERY VERY NICE ONE for .50, something everybody would want and not need the exorbitant lifstyle. So if .20c x 19 = 4 dollars of that $11 dollars goes back into the public (the public being whoever is involved in the economy) they could have hell of a lives. You see? Everybody has money that is shifted around, and somebody born tomorrow is not lazy if most of the money is in rich people's hands and not the economy. How are those people not hard working? I mean how are they supposed to catch up?
Integer, english please. I'm not a very bright guy so I'm not sure what you're saying in your post(s). The rich don't work hard for their money? They should have to share it? They aren't punished because they are lazy? It's not fair they have more money than the next guy? Maybe it's just me but it sounded like a lot of babble and maybe a bit of whinning.
petescheu
Registered User
There's this society that they tried doing that in one time, taking all the money that anyone ever earned and throwing it into the pool to make sure those that couldn't provide for themselves (or were too lazy too) were taken care of. It was called communism... it failed. This thing called Capitalism beat it out. There's probably a really good reason for that too. Rich people don't get rich by printing 65 million dollars in currency. They also don't get rich by stealing 65 million dollars from the poor. Rich people are rich because they worked really hard (no offense, but don't give me this crap that rich people don't work hard, I'll give you professional athletes, actors, and musicians on that one, but otherwise I'm going to have to disagree with you; you don't think bill gates or ross perot worked really hard for their money?) or were really talented and other people (rich AND poor) bought their product. Poor people aren't forced to go to the movies or to buy a CD or to buy a computer with Windows XP on it. So don't spew out crap about the plight of the poor. I'll agree, some people do not have the opportunity to earn large amounts of money, or even a modest amount. But this is America. Not all the schools are perfect, not all the colleges are accessible to everyone, but if you want something bad enough and are willing to work really hard for it, chances are pretty good that, eventually, you'll get there. Maybe not every time, but I think more often than not the opportunity is there in some form or another. And Integer, not to be a jerk or anything, but if you worked your ass off to earn a million dollars, and all you ended up with was 100,000 dollars, I think you'd be pretty pissed about it. I know I would be.
On another note, here's something I just read that's pretty interesting. Not going to see this one in the mainstream liberal media though, of course.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
On another note, here's something I just read that's pretty interesting. Not going to see this one in the mainstream liberal media though, of course.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
Yeah, I'm a little confused by Integer's posts as well. He's making the mistake of thinking that all the money in the economy comes from one central 'pot,' where if you take a dollar out for yourself, someone else loses a dollar. It doesn't work that way. Wealth can create wealth. Taking out a loan can create a company which employs people which earn money which furthers the economy more, etc.
Let me make it clear: My problem is not with hard working people making money. If you make say, under $500,000 a year, you should be able to keep most all of it. The problem exists when CEOs and executives who do relatively nothing get paid grossly gratuitous sums of money, more than most people can hope to earn in a lifetime, and are allowed to pay an almost miniscule percentage in taxes after using lawyers to find any and all loopholes to get around the IRS. Face it, we don't live in a perfect country. Public schools, national defence, etc are not funded with copious amounts of money. Can't those who make far and away much more a year just pay a little bit more to help all of us out? Is that too much to ask?
I think FlyNavy is still clinging to his idea that government shouldn't help people. Ookay, thats just fine...yeah, we should drop funding for Medicare and prescription drugs immediately...let those old folks die already...while we're at it, why should we fund public schools at all? I can teach my own kids!!! (Sarcasm, guys). Fly navy, seems to me like you want no govenment involvement in anything...except a woman's body, loving consenting individual's bedrooms...
Let me make it clear: My problem is not with hard working people making money. If you make say, under $500,000 a year, you should be able to keep most all of it. The problem exists when CEOs and executives who do relatively nothing get paid grossly gratuitous sums of money, more than most people can hope to earn in a lifetime, and are allowed to pay an almost miniscule percentage in taxes after using lawyers to find any and all loopholes to get around the IRS. Face it, we don't live in a perfect country. Public schools, national defence, etc are not funded with copious amounts of money. Can't those who make far and away much more a year just pay a little bit more to help all of us out? Is that too much to ask?
I think FlyNavy is still clinging to his idea that government shouldn't help people. Ookay, thats just fine...yeah, we should drop funding for Medicare and prescription drugs immediately...let those old folks die already...while we're at it, why should we fund public schools at all? I can teach my own kids!!! (Sarcasm, guys). Fly navy, seems to me like you want no govenment involvement in anything...except a woman's body, loving consenting individual's bedrooms...
sonshine
PLC06 Applicant
Vote for John Kerry?
Not a chance! Check out this article by a real war hero and someone who loves his country. Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, is a best-selling author with over 1,500,000 copies of his books in print worldwide, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado
My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.
The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered. But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: “They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.
My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it. Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.
Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.
John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW’s, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years. Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier’s International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.
“Hanoi John,” now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite. You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere.
Medals do not make a man. Morals do.
Don Bendell
Canon City, Colorado
Not a chance! Check out this article by a real war hero and someone who loves his country. Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, is a best-selling author with over 1,500,000 copies of his books in print worldwide, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado
My wife had rotator cuff surgery earlier this year, and the recovery is terribly painful. Then, she developed a staph-epi infection, and they had to cut the same scar open and operate on her again. Just thinking about the pain and anxiety of facing that painful surgery a second time in the same wound, makes me cringe. That experience, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart.
The old hurts are surfacing and the feelings of betrayal by fellow citizens, and their leader stirring them up, are breaking my heart again. I am being cut in the same scar. How did we who served in Vietnam suddenly become cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS or the Taliban? Most of us were American soldiers who grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes. That was why I volunteered. But for political expediency, John Kerry has rewritten history, again. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: “They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
I was a green beret officer who volunteered for duty in Vietnam and fought in the thick of it in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, just for starters. We were the elite. We saw the most action. Everybody in the world knows that. But we did not just kill people, we built a church, a school, treated illnesses, passed out soap, food, and clothing, and had fun and loving interaction with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We all gave away our candy bars and rations to kids. Our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe.
My children and grandchildren could read your words, and think those horrendous things about me, Mr. Kerry. You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow Vietnam veterans. Sure, there were a couple bad-apples, but I saw none, and I saw it all, and if I did, as an army officer, it was my obligation to stop it, or at the very least report it. Why is there not a single record anywhere of you ever reporting any incidents like this or having the perpetrators arrested? The answer is simple. You are a liar. Your medals and mine are not a free pass for lifetime, Senator Kerry, to bypass character, integrity, and morality. I earn my green beret over and over daily in all aspects of my life.
Eight National Guard green berets, and other National Guard soldiers, have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you totally dishonored their widows and families by lumping National Guard service in with being a draft-dodger, conscientious objector, and deserter, just so you can try to sabotage the patriotism of our President who proudly served as an Air National Guard jet pilot. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now, and his wife serves honorably in the Air National Guard, just like President Bush did, and I am as proud of her as I am my son. I volunteered for Vietnam and have no problem whatsoever with President Bush being our Commander-In-Chief. In fact, I am proud of him as our leader.
John Kerry, you personally derailed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, HR2883, in 2001, after it had passed the House by a 411 to 1 vote, and thousands of pro-American Montagnard tribespeople in Vietnam died since then who could have been saved, by you. Earlier, as Chair of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs, you personally quashed the efforts of any and all veterans to report sightings of living POW’s, when you held those reins in Congress. You have fought tooth and nail to push for the US to normalize relations with Vietnam for years. Why, Mr. Kerry? Simple, your first cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi, worth BILLIONS of dollars for Collier’s International to become the exclusive real estate representative for the country of Vietnam.
“Hanoi John,” now that it works for you, you beat your chest about your Vietnam service, but to me, you are a phony, opportunistic, hypocrite. You are one of those politicians that is like a fertilizer machine: all that comes out of you is horse manure, and you are spreading it everywhere.
Medals do not make a man. Morals do.
Don Bendell
Canon City, Colorado
**Warning - LONG post**
Sonshine, wow, that article took the words right out of my mouth and then some. I wasn't born when Vietnam rolled around, but I'm sick to death of it being used as a political litmus test 30 years later by civilians who have no damn clue about the military.
But let me address the economic side of this debate. Integer, there's two reasons why you're wrong. First, while Jefferson wrote about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, he was drawing some inspiration from a man named John Locke who postulated the idea of a "social contract" in the 1600's. What this phrase means is that people who live in a civilized world collectively agree to give up certain rights to the government in exchange for other rights being protected. I have no right to kill you under the laws of our country. But in return for giving up that right (which I would have in a state of anarchy) I am assured that no one will kill me. This is the ideal, I know, murders still happen but stay with me.
Three basic rights guaranteed under the Lockean social contract are life, liberty, and not happiness but property. In other words, you have the right to live your life as you wish and keep what you earn, provided you don't violate anyone else's identical rights in the process. Yes, government can levy taxes to protect those other rights, but ever onward. Under the social contract, my right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins. Enough background there, on to Reason 2.
What you are saying is that we should chuck this system in favor of "soaking the rich" because it's not fair that they keep what they earn, they're hoarding it, etc. Here's why this is wrong. Let's plot the distribution of wealth on an imaginary graph. Not surprisingly to those of us who've had statistics, it turns out as a bell curve. There are a few people on the left hand side who are really, desperately, sleeping-on-the-street poor (but not too many). As we move right and the amount of wealth increases, the amount of people making that much also increases, until we get to the "average" income. At this point (the top of the bell) the amount of people making that much money decreases. Eventually, you have a few Bill Gates types who make more than everyone else.
Now WHY do the rich get rich? Well, for the most part I think it's the simple economics of supply and demand. If I write a book that millions of people want to buy, then I have just created value out of thin air! Nothing! I'm not stealing from the local blue-collar folks, they're GIVING me their money because they want to be entertained by my book during their lunch break. They value the book as being worth more than the paper it's printed on, because I added value to it. And through my sweat and writer's block and broken pencils, I have EARNED whatever people are willing to trade me for my work. I return the favor when I pay the local contractor to build me a big new house, then he uses his fee to pay his workers and feed his family. So my "Exorbitant Lifestyle" actually sprays money around BACK INTO THE ECONOMY instead of hording it.
It's the nature of life that some people will be more successful than others. Due to supply and demand and plain old dumb luck, some people will make more marketable or valuable products. Brain surgeons make so much money because what they do is so valuable and dangerous. They go to school for years to learn to do some of the most dangerous, yet lifesaving work possible. Because we can trust them with our lives, we pay them more than the guy who stands at the movie theater shoveling popcorn. Heck, we could probably train MONKEYS to do that if we could just get them to stop flinging poo at the paying customers. Oh well . . .
So here's what happens when you soak the rich. The rich get poorer and the poor get richer. Okay, great. Now we reach Karl Marx's dream world. Everyone makes one salary and that's it. The bell curve becomes a vertical line in the middle. Then, the brain surgeon says: "Screw this, I'm flipping burgers. I get paid the same and it's a heck of a lot easier!" And so say the senior airline pilots, the platinum recording artists, the engineers, and everyone else.
When you soak the rich, you take away the motiviation to BECOME rich. Productivity goes down, and the vertical line on the bell curve slides its way to the left and society watches its collective cup of give-a-$#!T get emptier and emptier. I'm reminded of a quote from one of Tom Clancy's Soviet characters: "As long as the party bosses pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work." 'Nuff said.
One last plug. I shamelessly copied the "bell curve" analogy from my all-time favorite blogger Bill Whittle at www.ejectejecteject.com. Go there and read TRINITY. It'll be the best 15 minutes you've spent in a long while.
And no offense to those who, like me once, shovel popcorn for a living!
Sonshine, wow, that article took the words right out of my mouth and then some. I wasn't born when Vietnam rolled around, but I'm sick to death of it being used as a political litmus test 30 years later by civilians who have no damn clue about the military.
But let me address the economic side of this debate. Integer, there's two reasons why you're wrong. First, while Jefferson wrote about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, he was drawing some inspiration from a man named John Locke who postulated the idea of a "social contract" in the 1600's. What this phrase means is that people who live in a civilized world collectively agree to give up certain rights to the government in exchange for other rights being protected. I have no right to kill you under the laws of our country. But in return for giving up that right (which I would have in a state of anarchy) I am assured that no one will kill me. This is the ideal, I know, murders still happen but stay with me.
Three basic rights guaranteed under the Lockean social contract are life, liberty, and not happiness but property. In other words, you have the right to live your life as you wish and keep what you earn, provided you don't violate anyone else's identical rights in the process. Yes, government can levy taxes to protect those other rights, but ever onward. Under the social contract, my right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins. Enough background there, on to Reason 2.
What you are saying is that we should chuck this system in favor of "soaking the rich" because it's not fair that they keep what they earn, they're hoarding it, etc. Here's why this is wrong. Let's plot the distribution of wealth on an imaginary graph. Not surprisingly to those of us who've had statistics, it turns out as a bell curve. There are a few people on the left hand side who are really, desperately, sleeping-on-the-street poor (but not too many). As we move right and the amount of wealth increases, the amount of people making that much also increases, until we get to the "average" income. At this point (the top of the bell) the amount of people making that much money decreases. Eventually, you have a few Bill Gates types who make more than everyone else.
Now WHY do the rich get rich? Well, for the most part I think it's the simple economics of supply and demand. If I write a book that millions of people want to buy, then I have just created value out of thin air! Nothing! I'm not stealing from the local blue-collar folks, they're GIVING me their money because they want to be entertained by my book during their lunch break. They value the book as being worth more than the paper it's printed on, because I added value to it. And through my sweat and writer's block and broken pencils, I have EARNED whatever people are willing to trade me for my work. I return the favor when I pay the local contractor to build me a big new house, then he uses his fee to pay his workers and feed his family. So my "Exorbitant Lifestyle" actually sprays money around BACK INTO THE ECONOMY instead of hording it.
It's the nature of life that some people will be more successful than others. Due to supply and demand and plain old dumb luck, some people will make more marketable or valuable products. Brain surgeons make so much money because what they do is so valuable and dangerous. They go to school for years to learn to do some of the most dangerous, yet lifesaving work possible. Because we can trust them with our lives, we pay them more than the guy who stands at the movie theater shoveling popcorn. Heck, we could probably train MONKEYS to do that if we could just get them to stop flinging poo at the paying customers. Oh well . . .
So here's what happens when you soak the rich. The rich get poorer and the poor get richer. Okay, great. Now we reach Karl Marx's dream world. Everyone makes one salary and that's it. The bell curve becomes a vertical line in the middle. Then, the brain surgeon says: "Screw this, I'm flipping burgers. I get paid the same and it's a heck of a lot easier!" And so say the senior airline pilots, the platinum recording artists, the engineers, and everyone else.
When you soak the rich, you take away the motiviation to BECOME rich. Productivity goes down, and the vertical line on the bell curve slides its way to the left and society watches its collective cup of give-a-$#!T get emptier and emptier. I'm reminded of a quote from one of Tom Clancy's Soviet characters: "As long as the party bosses pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work." 'Nuff said.
One last plug. I shamelessly copied the "bell curve" analogy from my all-time favorite blogger Bill Whittle at www.ejectejecteject.com. Go there and read TRINITY. It'll be the best 15 minutes you've spent in a long while.
And no offense to those who, like me once, shovel popcorn for a living!
Great post Nittany,
I'd like to 2nd the fact that Communism does not work. The reason behind this is 2 simple reasons. 1 people are greedy. and 2. it forces people to become unproductive. The best example of this in todays world is Cuba. There are people with PhDs working as bell hopps because they earn more money that way. This is a waste of man power and intellegince. I"m not saying that we have the best system, but it works better than anything else out there right now.
Side note: Has anyone read Hienlien's Starship Troopers? the political commentary is great in it.
I'd like to 2nd the fact that Communism does not work. The reason behind this is 2 simple reasons. 1 people are greedy. and 2. it forces people to become unproductive. The best example of this in todays world is Cuba. There are people with PhDs working as bell hopps because they earn more money that way. This is a waste of man power and intellegince. I"m not saying that we have the best system, but it works better than anything else out there right now.
Side note: Has anyone read Hienlien's Starship Troopers? the political commentary is great in it.
- Status