Does anyone disagree?
-
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)
-
Rick, you can change the times, but you can't change people.
-
@david. said:
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?
A very minor point, but here's the link to FormFonts' free content:
http://www.formfonts.com/search.php?area=Models&query=gratis
-
David, that was my point exactly...to hold a mirror to the nonsense you are spouting. That crack about aliens is every bit as well thought-out as any of the utter garbage you are postulating about the powers of European governments and our abilities in the field of wealth generation.
You are presumably one of these people that thinks the USA actually invented democracy and that the rest of us live under all-powerful totalitarian regimes. There's only one troll on this forum...and he's recently arrived. Either that or he knows naff all about the world beyond his own borders.This particular "commie" earns comfortably more than the US average, lives in a $800,000 house and makes several trips abroad each year...including the US. He doesn't need any blinkered lessons in comparative government, overreaching government control or wealth creation. You don't need to be fingerprinted and photographed every time you enter or leave my country.
BTW FormFonts is a US company that I co-founded so it's a little difficult to imagine how British beaurocrats could get their hands on it in that manner...assuming they were allowed to.
I seem to remember a certain right-of-centre Iron Lady trying to introduce an unpopular and unfair tax some years ago. It cost her the election when a sizeable proportion of the population simply refused to pay it.Getting back on topic to Ricks original point; I think the US does need to re-appraise its policies both internal and foreign, because things clearly aren't working too well at the moment. As Solo hinted, any chance of change is preferable to more of the same.
You can quote all the growth and GDP statistics you like (BTW the gross GDP that you quoted in another post proves nothing other than the fact that the US is both still wealthy and geographically large; take GDP per capita and you are in 10th place, behind Ireland...that's the CIA's figures, not mine)...but the fact remains that at the end of WWII US industry was booming (and unscathed) whilst that of Europe was literally in ruins. US wages were several times that of Europe. Now there is little if any difference.
We can argue all day about who is exactly in the lead; it's both irrelevant and impossible to quantify such intangibles as quality of life and standard of living, but the simple truth is that we are now all much of a muchness, whereas before there was a very marked gulf. That being the case...and this being an international forum (Dutch in fact), I think you are going to find that any attempt at Uncle Samness...barging in and telling the rest of us what basket cases we are...especially when the US clearly hasn't been doing as well as Europe in terms of growth over the last half century...is going to go meet with a certain degree of resistance, if not derision.
-
Alan,
Clearly, you have trouble understanding the fact that I was using a bit of hyperbole to make a few points. On the other hand, you have no trouble replacing my words with your own, and you have no trouble distorting history in the years following WWII.
Your statement about who thinks who invented democracy is just silly?
I never used the term "British bureaucrats". I was speaking in generalities. Apparently, you want compelled social responsibility. I ask, somewhat rhetorically, who decides what level and by whom? I think if your personal tolerance level was infringed, then you would likely have quite a different view. I don't know what that level is, because it's different for each individual. BTW, I am not saying that there is absolutely no requirement for funding social needs such as schools, roads, defense, safety, etc. I draw the line when it comes to throwing money at everything that moves. The US has never been a socialist nation, that's the foundation of my philosophies.
You can twist the GDP stat any way you like. The example you stated, Ireland, is in no way comparable to the US. That is a fact. This is not to criticize Ireland. Are the millions of immigrants trying to break down the gates to Ireland, or the UK, or Germany, for that matter? Of course, immigration is not the only measure. I'm sure if I looked at per capita stats, I might be better of if I was a Kuwaiti or other oil country resident. That doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to the opportunity and overall quality of life I have in the US. I agree, this is not about who is in the lead as you say. But, I read so many of the condescending comments on this international forum. I think many of you are a bit jealous. But then, I'm probably some yahoo that doesn't even have a passport, so what do I know about Europe? Yes, that must be it. The fact is that there is no place I'd rather live than the "good ole US of A".
Even though you may have forgotten, I know that not all Europeans forget that it was American sweat, dollars, and most importantly, lives that helped save Europe in WWII. It was also billions upon billions of US dollars that helped rebuild and protect western Europe, and Japan, following the war. I have to check this fact, but I believe that Europe has not repaid most of what the US spent to help rebuild after the war. I wonder where Europe and Japan would be without US assistance? That's those "evil, ignorant" Americans, right. I know you have trouble understanding exaggeration, so I'll make it clear that I'm using exaggeration.
Regarding barging in and telling you what basket cases you are, I have no intention of that. From my perspective I've read more of the reverse here. I am amazed that I see so many that would like to change the economic/political system of the US. Then, you get so offended that I defend it. What if it was the people of the US that were trying to control or change the European economic/political systems?
I will continue to point out the flaws and dangers of a socialist system if it were to be fully implemented in the US.
Advertisement