Does anyone disagree?
-
@sorgesu said:
At the danger of veering off in another direction. I think we all need to rethink the "value" of an individual's work or contribution to society. Blaming , say, the middle class as the author of ills because they are spending beyond their means sounds reasonable on the face of it. But the structure of fiscal policies and commerce in general is enabling, no, promoting that sort of spending. It really is hollow when multi millionaire political figures preach conservative spending to comparitive "have nots". Why is the labour of one man worth millions while the labour of another, who through no fault or intent of his own, is not as gifted. How do you "blame" those who want what the next guy has. Why can't he have it too? It is difficult not to be avaricious when the carrot is dangled in front of our noses.
I don't suggest that we all earn the same. That would be contrary to the basics of human nature. We don't just strive for self satisfaction, we do strive for recognition in a monetary sense. However, there is a greater imbalance in wealth or "recognition" in my opinion, than the imbalance in the degree of abilities and talent. Is the contribution of a janitor millions of times less value to society than a McCain?
As long as we have consipicuous consumption by large numbers who can afford, those who can't will want some of the pie. You either tighten up credit to make that impossible so no one gets into trouble, or your spread the wealth around more liberally so that more can have more easily. I don't know how you do that. Taxing the heck out of the rich and subsidizing the poor and mid income to some degree has all kinds of negative ramifications as well.
You people are the ultimate hypocrites. You claim to be about freedom of choice, yada, yada, yada,...
But, controlling your own life is not enough. You're the ones that need to control the the lives of the unborn, the neighbors, the village, the city, the country and the world.
Last time I checked, there is no prohibition on you giving any or all of your work or income to those you think need it more than you. Joe Biden is the shining example of the liberal hypocrite. He gives to charities an average of about $320/year over his entire career as a senator. This two face will then criticize Dick Cheney about what an awful person he is. The truth is that the "evil" Cheney's have given millions of dollars to charities.
Why don't you liberal hypocrites give your work away for free? Strange that I don't see any free products or services available on your websites. That's because you need to make sure everyone else is forced to tow your line. You are pathetic.
It used to be that the market determined the value of the janitor, doctor, etc. Now, the leftists want to determine value. When you're done, there will be no incentive to improve one's self, to be independent, and to be self reliant. That's that beginning of the spiral into worthlessness.
-
Wow, your tone is offensive. Ever hear of debating your point of view without vitriolic outbursts.
Best,
-
Well David, that is quite a charming 12th post "We people here" are generally a very pleasant and reflective lot. Expressing that I care and am concerned about the state of the poor is generally indicative of a "nice" person. For your information, I am a single parent and have been since my children were 1 and 3 years old (15 years). I have recieved zero financial support from my ex husband in all those years and I work very long hard hours to try and make ends meet. I am toiling for a living and I am not in the league of Mcain by a very long shot. There are so many more who are in much more desperate straits than I am and I am concerned for them. I do give to charities to the best of my abilities but my first priority is to do the best I can for my children.
So for you to say to me:
@david. said:
@sorgesu said:
Why don't you liberal hypocrites give your work away for free? Strange that I don't see any free products or services available on your websites. That's because you need to make sure everyone else is forced to tow your line. You are pathetic.
.
Is exceptionally insulting. But also it is totally irrelevant to the point. It really doesn't address my points and is just plain inflamatory. ( my clever son interjected here and said quite rightly that even if I were a hypocrite, that in no way affects the rightness or wrongness of the arguement at hand) You don't know me or anything about me. You've made all sorts of assumptions and you are willing to pick a fight based on a total lack of knowledge about who you are insulting.
This is a very interesting topic and no one is intelligent enough to unravel the mess and know for sure which way to go. It must be comforting for you to know that you have all the answers -
If you will reread the quoted portion in your post, you will see that I was using the plural form of "you/your". Unfortunately, I was quoting your post. I could have quoted others, but yours was last in the list. So, it seemed like my comments were specifically targeted to you. That was not my intention. I apologize to you for that.
However, I stand by my comments in general. BTW, in my short time reading this forum, I have read some of the most inflammatory personal attacks and insults directed toward McCain, Palin, Bush, Cheney. All you have to do is search the corner bar for evidence. I quite frankly am disgusted with some of what I've read. And, my regard for individuals that continually propagate that trash is nil. Until seeing some of these, I would have never thought of making any of the same type of insults toward Obama or any other liberal politician.
I have made arguments against a leftist/socialist/marxist controlled government. It doesn't take much analysis to determine that Obama is a marxist. In his book, he has spoken of connecting with marxist professors while in college. He has a relationship with Bill Ayers (also a terrorist). Look up Saul Alinsky for more insight into the Bill Ayers radical connections. He has a significant long term relationship with J. Wright (look up Black Liberation Theology and James Cone). I suggest you do some real research about these people. These are highly questionable relationships and are unprecedented in a candidate for the office of the presidency of the US. There are so many sources of information on this guy, but so many of his followers are infatuated, and I mean literally infatuated, with "the One". It brings to mind images of the third reich.
Also, regarding the less fortunate among us. I have seen enough in my life to know there is a difference between the less fortunate and those that simply don't want to support themselves. Rewarding that behavior is a disservice to those and society in general. It breaks down the standard of living for the population as a whole. That leads to an out of control spiral. Throwing money is not the solution. Building a work ethic and self respect is the solution. I will reiterate my point about redistribution of wealth. Those of you that want to give your work or income away, go ahead. But, don't force everyone to follow along just because you want to give it away. I wouldn't want anyone to give me their hard earned money. What right do I have to do that? It used to be that that was called "theft".
-
David
I'm glad to see your apology to Susan.
There is more to this forum than the corner bar, Don't judge the forum for posts in the corner bar. This is a particularly divisive time in American history regardless of who the candidates for president are. The fact that there is an African American, a female American, a War Veteran, and a civil service veteran in the race makes it even more divisive. We are all entitled to our opinions, however the methods we employ to express those opinions can be subject to discussion.
I'm not going to claim moral superiority in this matter, because I'm getting grey hair that gives away my age and some days I can't remember what I ate for breakfast let alone what I typed in this forum days ago.
So you typed this "Building a work ethic and self respect is the solution." Great I agree now let's talk about how we can achieve that.
I'll go first.
- Let's agree to treat all people with respect regardless of their situation in life. Regardless of their race, religion, sex, age, or political or sexual preference.
If you agree with number 1 then lets move on to yours Number 2.
-
@pkast said:
You can agree with the sentiment, but it rings painfully hollow from a senator who continually voted down minimum wage increases for 10 years along with his fellow Republican Legislators while they held the reigns of Congress. Where was his concern about the lowest income Americans then.
The minimum wage increase only passed after the Democrats took over more seats in both houses after 2006. The GOP agreed to an increase in the minumum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over three years, but only if the democrats would agree to the GOP's plan to decrease the estate tax, a 10-year, $268 billion cut to the estate tax. This effectively gave an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America. Is this the senator who is concerned with the lowest income Americans? I can't see it. Sorry.
When less than 2% of the nation's workforce is affected by the minimum wage, it's hard to see the relevance to the argument. You also didn't provide any info on McCain's personal record on the minimum wage - just used generalizations for "guilt by association". You may be right, but substantiation is needed.
-
@rickw said:
...When less than 2% of the nation's workforce is affected by the minimum wage, it's hard to see the relevance to the argument...
Gee, I thought one of the recurring arguements against raising the minimum wage is it causes pressure to raise wages across the board and small business just can't afford such so jobs will be lost...?
-
@jackson said:
Just what it was in Susan's post that made you so angry that you felt the need to abuse her like that is beyond me, if you knew anything at all about her (as hundreds of this forum's members do) you would know that she is kind, generous, very intelligent, entrepreneurial and extremely hard-working and her politics have not adversely affected her
@david. said:incentive to improve one's self, to be independent, and to be self reliant.
This notion often fowarded by conservatives has always baffled me- as if the only reason any of us work is to earn and hoard as much money as possible and we instantly lose the will to be productive or to better ourselves as soon as anyone threatens to take a portion of our gains away to provide security for those who have been made redundant, or were born disabled or returning soldiers severely injured in war (there's the rub: even conservatives need social security too sometimes). If that was the case, why do many very wealthy American conservatives and liberals alike donate so much of their time to charity work?
Perhaps it is the measure of the greatness of a man or woman that they study and work hard not solely for monetary renumeration, but rather because they see the betterment of themselves and a strong work ethic as virtues in themselves.I've already made it clear that I did not intend to personally attack Susan. However, I do believe that the leftist/socialist/marxist philosophy is a "pathetic" philosophy. It is a coward's way to choose to be a part of a group that believes in group control (by the few or "the One", no free will, no free thought, no individualism. To take from some by force to give to others that did nothing to earn what is being given to them.
You are injecting a falsehood in thinking that I believe that the only reason to be productive is to stash away everything that I earn. I believe it is admirable to choose to do something on your own, to support yourself, and yes, to sometimes employ tough love when it comes to helping others. I have never appreciated anything in life that was simply given to me as much as that for which I worked or that which I created myself. Apparently, that is the difference between someone like you and someone like me. You want to throw money at anyone that you think can't support themselves. And, you want to do that by force, if necessary. The contradiction in that logic (to simply give to those that don't want to work for themselves) is incredible. How does that promote "the will to better ourselves"?
I want to change attitudes so as to give those people a way of achieving their own success.
-
David,
So you "apologised" to Susan for implying that you were singling her out in your disgusting attack, but nevertheless it was aimed at her as part of a group. Would you be more or less offended if I wrote "David you are pathetic" or if I wrote "All conservatives are pathetic"? (BTW, to our more reasonable conservative members here, this is not a view I hold, I'm just making a point). Just what it was in Susan's post that made you so angry that you felt the need to abuse her like that is beyond me, if you knew anything at all about her (as hundreds of this forum's members do) you would know that she is kind, generous, very intelligent, entrepreneurial and extremely hard-working and her politics have not adversely affected her "incentive to improve one's self, to be independent, and to be self reliant."
This notion often fowarded by conservatives has always baffled me- as if the only reason any of us work is to earn and hoard as much money as possible and we instantly lose the will to be productive or to better ourselves as soon as anyone threatens to take a portion of our gains away to provide security for those who have been made redundant, or were born disabled or returning soldiers severely injured in war (there's the rub: even conservatives need social security too sometimes). If that was the case, why do many very wealthy American conservatives and liberals alike donate so much of their time to charity work?
Perhaps it is the measure of the greatness of a man or woman that they study and work hard not solely for monetary renumeration, but rather because they see the betterment of themselves and a strong work ethic as virtues in themselves. -
@david. said:
However, I do believe that the leftist/socialist/marxist philosophy is a "pathetic" philosophy. It is a coward's way to choose to be a part of a group that believes in group control (by the few or "the One", no free will, no free thought, no individualism.
Interesting view. So, I am to conclude that I am a willess drone, and that my country (Belgium) is totalitarian state, as us Belgomites prise solidarity over carnivorous capitalism? There's a vast difference between the middle-of-the-road leftism we got here and the kind of leader-centered, hardcore communism they got in, say, North Korea, mate. You don't hear me equating your particular brand of conservativism to fascism, now do ya? Show some bleedidn' courtesy.
-
leftist / socialist / Marxist is an extrapolation that's no different from saying Republican (or Tory)/ fascist / Nazi. There's an enormous gulf between the social-democratic governments of many European countries and Marxism...every bit as wide as the gulf between neocons and Nazis.
Socialism of the western European variety isn't communism, it's basic social responsibility. You only get communism if you pass such notions through the minds of people who may be intellectual but have no common sense, like Marx and Engels. You only get communism when you extrapolate such notions to absurdity with catch-phrases like "All property is theft."...when you guarantee a job for life to everyone, however shiftless they may be...when you force people to work in collectives and seriously expect them to be as diligent and motivated as if they were working for themselves.
You really do have an utterly distorted view of things, don't you?
-
Not surprisingly, I find your views distorted, among other things.
If you think it is distorted to believe in promoting free will, to believe in the freedom to choose to whom or what I give my earnings, and to believe in the desire to do those things wisely, then you have little hope of understanding how I view things.
And, American conservatism is about as far from fascism as is possible. These kinds of comparisons are examples of the weakness of the arguments brought by the leftists to this debate. In fact, I believe leftism is more like fascism. It has to do with the unbalanced centralized control (totalitarianism), eg forcing people to do what the group in control wants. European socialism is effectively fascism lite. In fact, wasn't Nazism the embodiment of national socialism? Hmmm, European socialism on the one hand and national socialism on the other. I see an unsettling similarity.
I still haven't seen anyone show any indication of giving their work away. Where's all the social responsibility? How about it if a small group of government bureaucrats decides that Formfonts will now be required to give 50% of its products and services to the public at no cost? How about if I was the one deciding how much and to whom to give the efforts of your labor? I assure you, I would do this in order to be socially responsible. How about it?
-
-
Hm. Is this guy a mate of Jimmy's/Cornel's? Either that, or he's completely bonkers.
@david. said:
European socialism is effectively fascism lite. In fact, wasn't Nazism the embodiment of national socialism? Hmmm, European socialism on the one hand and national socialism on the other. I see an unsettling similarity.
Brilliant! Pure genius!
-
Holy Cow! Well I guess there's no point in even trying to debate a point with someone as out of touch as that.
@unknownuser said:
How about it if a small group of government bureaucrats decides that Formfonts will now be required to give 50% of its products and services to the public at no cost?
How about if a small group of alien shapeshifters beam down, impersonate the Royal family, dissolve Parliament and set themselves up as absolute monarchs? It's about as likely.
-
David, I have't the energy to engage in a long drawn out debate with you about your views and about your "leftist" fears. I don't disagree with you that just throwing money at people is counterproductive if they ever have a hope of being self reliant. The instant you have "government' you already concede some control for the sake of the greater good. If you think that we have anything that approaches a free market economy you had better think again. Our economy has been fiddled with in countless ways. The very concept of graduated taxation, or the enforcement of minimum wages, or tariffs etc etc. How exactly do you draw the line between one sort of interference and call that acceptable but another smacks of socialism? Never mind. Let's not get into it.
My thinking was far more rigid and more along the lines of your thinking when I was much younger. There is nothing like having children to cause you to re-examine your precepts. If your children are born healthy and brilliant, perhaps you never will. But if a child of yours is born deficient in any way, even fairly mildly, you begin to view the world in a completely different way. You become accutely aware of the children of others who have more serious deficiences. You begin to remember those individuals you went to school with and scoffed at for their lack of brains and ability, and you are inclined to be much more accepting. All those people you went to school with who were ..."not so smart". Their numbers are legion and they all grow up and they work and live all around you and they don't have a prayer of achieving what you do. So too bad, right? You won the brains and ability lottery and so be it.
Well when it is your own kid, you don't really want to leave it at "too bad" and you are apt to be much more sympathetic to all of the others. So really, what I was talking about was much more fundamental than politics or just the USA. If there is an intrinsic value to one's humanity, then a human who will never be capable of more than washing toilets for a living has the same right to creature comforts, time for fun, security in a future and no fear of what his golden years will bring as does a hockey player, or a corporate magnate. Yes, yes there are those who are just plain lazy, but I am not talking about them. I'm talking about the greater numbers whose work we, as a society, don't value because there are so many of them and the laws of economics makes them a cheap commodity.
Leaving things completely to market forces, even if such a pristine state could exist, is similar to the law of the Jungle. If that is acceptable then it follows that that there is no intrinsic value to being human. There is only value in being a capable human. And our very humanity is called in question.
-
positively lyrical susan.
-
Alan, remus, and stinkie,
Your comments are very well thought out. I'm impressed (actually, not so much). Based on what I've read from you all in this, troll comes to mind. I won't be taking the bait.
Susan is is the only one who's made a reasoned, rational argument. I made the mistake of unintentionally offending her.. go figure.
-
@sorgesu said:
Leaving things completely to market forces, even if such a pristine state could exist, is similar to the law of the Jungle. If that is acceptable then it follows that that there is no intrinsic value to being human. There is only value in being a capable human. And our very humanity is called in question.
Will you marry me?
Beautifully put.@david. said:
Alan, remus, and stinkie,
Your comments are very well thought out. I'm impressed (actually, not so much). Based on what I've read from you all in this, troll comes to mind. I won't be taking the bait.
Right. Hop along now.
-
I've finally realized that it all just doesn't matter. I was reminded of this song by the Kingston Trio, recorded in 1957.
If things can't change (substantially) in 50 years, neither McCain nor Obama is going to do squat, and all the rhetoric about "change" is nothing more than diarrhea of the mouth.
(tongue firmly in cheek)
Advertisement