[grassroots1]

Fasces, first of all you are not liberal. Second of all your gripe is against most Americans, not the rich, since most Americans would have done exactly the same thing were they rich. That's because relatively few Americans love their nation as much as you want them to (which is not a vice, since America is just a geographical area with a government, not a blood brotherhood), and because even those who live in order to serve their fellow men, might not agree with you that the best way to do this is by protectionism which turns American market into an uncompetitive one.

To me, this is a non-argument. Those who have reached the top of our system are consciously exploiting American people through misinformation and the destruction of social services (which the American people have amazingly been convinced to support). A government is supposed to serve its people, and in our system government is controlled mainly by business interests. This is a flawed system and this is why there is a common perception that "the rich" are fucking over the rest of us. This becomes especially apparent when a person who is considered "rich" also holds political opinions that suggest he/she should pay no taxes, that there should be no occupational safety laws, etc.

Ironically it's not usually the rich who suggest those things, it's poor people who like to think of themselves as aspiring to be successful. That's a healthy attitude but when it means that you're suggesting the few social services that ensure social mobility in this country should be taken away, something is wrong with that ideology. That's why it's an ideology supported by the most powerful people in this society, that's why there's this "astroturf" grassroots movement of Tea Partiers who angrily argue against their own interests.

I differ from Fasces in that I don't believe we should have a nationalist perspective and limit our concern to the people of our nation. I believe that that concern needs to encompass every single people on Earth. We live an interconnected existence and it's about time we start acting like it, IMO. That change can only happen in the minds of individuals.

[eugenekop]

^

That's the problem, that your goal is different from the goal Fasces has, and my goal is also different. How can we then all live together without hating and fighting each other? Simple, through property rights. That's the best and most moral system to prevent conflicts between individuals who have different goals. I can serve my goals with my property (providing free market services), you can serve your goals with your property (education and health care services to Africa), and Fasces can serve his goals with his property (Helping fellow Americans).

[grassroots1]

We've had this discussion before, I can only reiterate the fact that history has shown (in my opinion, you might differ) that government, democracy, and regulation are necessary to prevent tragedies of the commons, to ensure standards of life, and to ensure a level of social mobility. Without these things we see entrenched socioeconomic classes, meaning tyrannical control over the lives of working people. Maintaining our democratic rights and our right to collectively determine things like tax rates and how revenue should be spent (defense, health, education, roads, etc.) is a part of living in the modern world and there is just no getting around it. I think it's a fantasy that the greatest good for the greatest number would magically fall into place if we followed your strict definition of "respect for property rights."

[Swinging Man]

I don't think social services should be cut at all. (Not that I'm implying that anyone is targeting me, just want to make it clear that I don't believe that they should be cut). Although they shouldn't be cut, they should be beefed up with some more rules and guidelines. If people see an endless amount assistance being provided by the government, how motivated are they going to be to get off of that assistance? I'm not denying that some people genuinely need it. Shit, a lot of people do these days, but, but there are a lot of people that abuse it. It sucks waiting on line at a supermarket after working, not sleeping for a day due to having to work, and the line is held up because someone has a shit ton of food stamps, etc. The person is fat as fuck, has tons of children, and here I am working my ass off, skinny as all hell cos I stick with in my budget with what I make....who is more irresponsible? Don't get me wrong though, I'm not defending the assholes at the top who have fucked people over to get where they are. The problem to me is when people don't look at both extremes. There are rich people that are fucking the system, and abusing it to their benefit. At the same time though there are poor people fucking the system and abusing it. I don't consider myself liberal, conservative, rich, poor, middle class, or anything else. I'm just me trying to survive, live on my own, and be able to have a good time with my friends when I'm not working. But even with that said being in the middle of both of these asshole groups sucks. Hearing people mudsling to only one side of the coin sucks too.

[grassroots1]

^I agree with you, and honestly I think if there was more of an emphasis on education and health services in this country, we would see people generally more prepared to enter the workforce instead of becoming drains on society. We can look to Scandinavian countries like Finland, which has the best educational system in the world (public), for examples of where this has worked amazingly well. Also when compared with the military budget in this country, corporate subsidy, or medicare, welfare fraud is probably pretty negligible. That's why I can't understand why all these libertarians rail against welfare and fail to criticize corporate control of our government, military interventionism, and all the bullshit that happens in the name of American people that few of us ever asked for.

IMO, most libertarians are facing the wrong direction.

[Zagadka]

Be clear; I don't have a problem with rich people. I have a problem with dicks, and a rich dick has more potential energy to use or waste. When I speak ill of rich people, I am talking about the fuckwads in the mortgage crash or credit default swap. I have no problem with most rich people - but the ones firing thousands of Americans and sending the jobs overseas, or giving themselves millions in bonuses...

[Genghis Khan]

but the ones firing thousands of Americans and sending the jobs overseas, or giving themselves millions in bonuses...

The fact they're giving themselves huge bonuses is a good thing, because that means they'll have more to spend in a restaurant, hotel or airplane, thus keeping the employees there busy and creating demand for more employees in those businesses, which creates jobs.

In fact, if we eliminate taxes altogether on anyone who can afford a private jet, just think how much they can reinvigorate the economy with all the excess money they'll be spending.

It's called the trickle "I'll piss in your mouth and you'll call it lemon juice" down theory of economics.

[Swinging Man]

Anyone else catching on to the fact that a lot of us on here in this thread, after talking about it respectfully to each other, for the most part agree on the fundamentals of this issue and that we only deviate on the minute details?

Can we attempt something here? Can we attempt to do something that most of our leaders seem to have no ability to do? Can we come to some agreement on a solution? We all know the problem(s), and we all have different angles from which we approach it. Which I think can be a positive if we use it to our benefit.

What do some of you suggest as a solution, or multiply solutions? Where can we come to a common ground on that?

[rik]

After reading some of the posts in this thread the first thing that came to mind was this video:

Wow what a video. I didn't realize there are peolple left in America who still spoke with this kind of candor.

Liberals, note this - life is not fair. You can try to use your bully pulpit to try re-engineer everything. It won't work. Just like the video said, some are born with inferior DNA.

You can lay all the opportunities at some people's feet. They still can't make it.

On the other hand, some make it against all odds.

You cannot equalize the world. The world is not meant to be equalized. It's a survival of the fittest type thing.

[Zagadka]

Liberals, note this - life is not fair

Keep saying that when you're knocked on your ass and helpless.

[rik]

Liberals don't hate rich people, they just need bucketfuls of cash to fund their entitlement programs. So they have to demonize them so people will accept looting the rich's bank accounts as a right and good thing to do.

You're a smart man.

The whole idea is to make "rich" a dirty word. It then becomes easy to raid the purse of rich people legally. State sanctioned robbery.

Liberals are devious beings. Constantly concealing their true nature. They have to lie to the people, because if they shared their true intentions, even the least intelligent among their followers would run.

[Zagadka]

The whole idea is to make "rich" a dirty word.

Like you make "union" a dirty word.

[Genghis Khan]

Wow what a video. I didn't realize there are peolple left in America who still spoke with this kind of candor.

What I didn't realize is that there are people in America who still consider Vince McMahon an authority on anything.

Since isn't about life being unfair. It's about understanding that increasing the gap between the rich and the poor is just as bad as implementing a Communist system to try and equalize them.

And it doesn't stop there. Not only are they getting richer, they're giving themselves bonuses so they can rub everybody's faces in it.

And as it stands, the gap is increasing with no signs of slowing down.

[rik]

Liberals helped create the conditions that make it more profitable to ship those jobs overseas, then call people monsters when they are only acting realistically based on the environment they live in. If you don't want the jobs to go overseas, then make it more profitable for companies to do business here. If you think the price of doing so is too high, then don't complain about the results - they're as much your responsibility, if not more, than the companies' acting on your decisions.

We are going to shackle you with all kinds of regulations.
Raise taxes on you sky high.
Impose all manner of environmentalist mambo-jumbo on you.
Force you to pay union wages.

We know that many other countries provide a very business-friendly climate.
We know these countries would welcome you with open arms.
We are also aware of how easy it is this day and age to move business operations overseas, or outsource part of it.

But, we really don't care. We still expect you to remain in America and keep taking all the abuse we dish out.

[Zagadka]

We know that many other countries provide a very business-friendly climate.

= you don't have to spend that precious green, while still being able to bitch about... what? The poor wanting something? The national debt rising out of control? Yes, just cutting programs will fix that.

If you don't want to support the US, please at least leave and live in one of those business-friendly countries you're shipping jobs to.

[grassroots1]

Swinging Man,
I think the #1 target that most Americans can probably agree on is that America should tone down its role abroad. At least I've seen very few people on these forums who support our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and in terms of a practical step for a nation that is heavily in debt, instead of cutting social services we should be cutting military spending and military presence in foreign nations. AFAIC we should be increasing spending on social services at the time when they are most needed, not decreasing them. Also some recent polls have suggested that this isn't a widely popular position, but I think it's an extremely urgent goal to advocate for the repeal of the Patriot Act.

Rik,

You can lay all the opportunities at some people's feet. They still can't make it.

On the other hand, some make it against all odds.

He does speak the truth in some ways. Often hardship is what creates a person. People who live in luxury often have very little perspective or drive, and in my mind that is the fault of old money and an upbringing that doesn't instill an appreciation for that luxury. But my main desire isn't that the government should provide the means for everyone to live in obscene luxury, only that the government should provide the means for every person to fulfill their physical and intellectual potential as human beings. This is why I believe we need a more comprehensive system of public education and health care, otherwise we can slip into a situation where freedom really is highly limited, where there is very little hope for mobility, and where one entrenched class of people has control over another in terms of quality of life, education, etc. This is a progressive nation where, relative to other places and other times in history, people have a great deal of potential for mobility, and I agree that this is something I (as a "liberal" or "progressive") did not fully appreciate. But this potential for mobility is a result of the social services and labor regulations that do exist in this country, which are themselves the result of bloody labor struggles in US history for an 8-hour-day, an end to child labor, the weekend. These are things that would not exist if certain people did not sacrifice their own well-being for the well-being of their community.

This is why I also think there is a tendency to glorify capitalism and free markets on the other side of the equation (and there is plenty of propaganda that supports this perspective) when a long history of labor struggle attests to the fact that an unrestricted capitalist system can spell destruction for working people. You only have to look at the background of events like the Ludlow massacre to see why a labor movement was necessary and why government-backed regulations were ultimately necessary to protect working people against abuse. Also you only need to look at today's unregulated capitalist system in China to see the potential for devastation on the environment and on working people. I think there is a medium here - I think it's possible to have a democratically-controlled government that is accountable to the people that keeps business in check. I think it's important to keep business, as an influence, outside that democratic system for reasons that are apparent if you are aware of the nature of government in the United States.

I'm sorry to rant, but then again you all can decide whether or not you want to read, so fuck it.

[rik]

What I didn't realize is that there are people in America who still consider Vince McMahon an authority on anything.

You do this all the time. You ignore the message, and attack the messenger.

It's about understanding that increasing the gap between the rich and the poor is just as bad as implementing a Communist system to try and equalize them.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the communist part.
But I do agree that the disparity is increasing between the rich and the poor.
However, the poor is poor for a reason. We don't live in Cuba, where you cannot better your life even if you wanted to.

In America, you could go get an education. Even a simple 6 month course in most cases could double or triple your earnings. But the Liberal philosophy is that nobody needs to work, since there's enough money in the hands of the greedy capitalist for everybody.

And it doesn't stop there. Not only are they getting richer, they're giving themselves bonuses

You're right. The government gives them bail out money, and it's immediately spent on bonuses.
But, even that being the case, as long as the money is spent here, you still benefit. That is the reason for my original post.

You do not need to keep wallowing in self pity. Get up and better your life. Democrats lead their followers astray, by making them believe that manner falls from heaven. There is no such thing.

[Doug64]

Be clear; I don't have a problem with rich people. I have a problem with dicks, and a rich dick has more potential energy to use or waste. When I speak ill of rich people, I am talking about the fuckwads in the mortgage crash or credit default swap. I have no problem with most rich people - but the ones firing thousands of Americans and sending the jobs overseas, or giving themselves millions in bonuses...

If businesses are sending jobs overseas, either a) it's the natural effect of developing economies (and poor people in other countries need jobs, too), or b) we've chosen to make the business climate noncompetitive - either accept the loss of jobs as the price for putting our values into law, or change the law. But I have no problem at all with watching "rich dicks" like hawks and jumping all over them whenever they cross the line (personally, I think the handouts we gave to banks, etc., during the mortgage crisis should have come with a requirement that all those both immediately and ultimately responsible for the bad decisions be fired without severance packages). I just have a problem with defining anyone that makes too much money as a "rich dick" and demanding he turn over his "immoral" excess profit to the government for redistribution.

If you don't want to support the US, please at least leave and live in one of those business-friendly countries you're shipping jobs to.

How about supporting the US by remaining here and supporting those that want to create the environment needed for those jobs to stay here, instead?

[rik]

People who live in luxury often have very little perspective or drive, and in my mind that is the fault of old money and an upbringing that doesn't instill an appreciation for that luxury.

Democrats do not encourage people to work. And this is my gripe against that political party.

I believe we need a more comprehensive system of public education and health care

How much more public education do we need? It already costs a fortune to run public schools relative to private schools. America already spend a fortune per pupil compared to other countries, the put our better educated students. Are you saying we need to spend even more money on this boondoggle called public education?

As for government controlled health care system, you do understand that anything the government presides over, ends up costing a whole lot more? So by that token why do you want a government-controlled health care system?

This is a progressive nation where, relative to other places and other times in history, people have a great deal of potential for mobility, and I agree that this is something I (as a "liberal" or "progressive") did not fully appreciate.

Finally, a Liberal who speaks the truth.

But this is a result of the social services and labor regulations that do exist in this country, which are themselves the result of bloody labor struggles in US history for an 8-hour-day, an end to child labor

True.

But with all the regulations out there, and minimum wage laws, do we still need labor unions forcing unrealistic wages on employers? Business is tough to run. Most business owners work 12-16+ hours a day, 7 days a week. When somehow, such business owner earns $200,000 a year, Obama wants to tax it to death.

My point is, at what point is enough enough with labor unions?

This is why I also think there is a tendency to glorify capitalism and free markets on the other side of the equation (and there is plenty of propaganda that supports this perspective)

Free market system is not propaganda. If practiced properly, without crippling government regulations, it's actually the best system to have. It's self-regulating. Unfortunately, government regulations see to it that free market systems can't work.

I think there is a medium here - I think it's possible to have a democratically-controlled government that is accountable to the people that keeps business in check.

Keeping business in check like you said is a balancing act. If you stress business too much, they would leave. That is what we see with Obama today, where investors are refusing to risk their money, following Obama's threats to raise taxes.

The only thing I don't understand about Liberals is that, even though they are aware of the fact that if you push businesses too hard, they would go elsewhere, Liberals still do it. They then resort to guilt tactics like "if you love America, you wouldn't take your business to another country".

In reality, the statement should be, "if you love America, you wouldn't drive job creators away to other countries".

[rik]

If you don't want to support the US, please at least leave and live in one of those business-friendly countries you're shipping jobs to.

You're using upside-down logic here.

But here is my question to you...

Do you believe government regulations could become excessive against businesses? Or as far as you're concerned, anything goes?