quote:

Think about what you are saying here. You're telling us that outsourcing low-paying jobs is bad, but there is nothing wrong with forcing corporations to pay a minimum wage higher than the economic worth for those jobs? No wonder you think outsourcing is wrong.

quote:

Corporations do not owe anyone anything. They hire what they need and will pay them what they need to pay them. Businesses aren't in business to hire people and overpay them. Be my guest to make a business solely to hire people and pay them very well. If business over-hired and over-paid, you'd be complaining that they are charging too much for their products, causing large scale price increases across sectors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Think about what you are saying here. You're telling us that outsourcing low-paying jobs is bad, but there is nothing wrong with forcing corporations to pay a minimum wage higher than the economic worth for those jobs? No wonder you think outsourcing is wrong.

They became low-paying jobs after they were outsourced. Before outsourcing became fashionable businesses had no problem making profits while paying a living wage to Labor.

quote:

quote:

Corporations do not owe anyone anything. They hire what they need and will pay them what they need to pay them. Businesses aren't in business to hire people and overpay them. Be my guest to make a business solely to hire people and pay them very well. If business over-hired and over-paid, you'd be complaining that they are charging too much for their products, causing large scale price increases across sectors.

Henry Ford understood that to sell his cars he had to pay his labor a decent wage. Outsourcing has diminished the working class here and corporations are ever more reliant on exporting their goods. The way the working class survives is by going into debt. Consumer debt today is back to $2.5T as it was in 2007.

quote:


Additionally, corporations enjoy certain rights as natural people. They can sue in court. The can fund political campaigns. They are afforded the protection of our laws, the use of our infra-structure, and the protection of our military as natural people. Philosophically, they have an obligation to the welfare of the social structure. Some are cogniscent of that and some are just greedy bastards. Otherwise, you are only parroting Ayn Rand dogma.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Henry Ford understood that to sell his cars he had to pay his labor a decent wage.

quote:

DesideriScuri
The problem isn't that there is inequality. And, it isn't in how great a disparity there is. It's all about the woes of those at the bottom. We have a social welfare net in the US. We have for the longest of times. It used to not be government provided, but that pretty much is it now.


The problem isn't that those in need can't get their needs met. It's that they can't get their wants met. There are people who take advantage of the system on both ends (game the welfare system when they aren't truly in need, and those wealthy that game the system to increase their wealth). The issue isn't what the poor lack that the rich have. It's that the poor are told they need to have what the rich have. People with low or no incomes don't need cell phones, cable TV, satellite dishes, etc. They don't need to have the new car, the latest and greatest gadget, etc.

quote:

Fomenting socioeconomic division is the best way to divide and cause unrest. Promising to close the divide is a great way to get elected after picking at the divide. Obama and the Democrats have played this masterfully (ignore for the moment the racial divide they are working on, too), but have not done what they promised on the other end. It's against their best interest to do so, too. If the poor no longer feel like they need, what can they be bribed with?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

What we are seeing today is the same collapse of empire which took place in Europe as a result of the two World Wars. The empires which emerged from the collapse of Rome finally got so tattered and worn that they wound up destroying themselves in a fit of glory. As the Canadian author pointed out, this is now happening to the US of A, and it is simply the inevitable logic of history. Practically every country has tried their hand at imperialism at one time or another, including - believe it or not - Lithuania, Portugal, and Belgium. The result was always the same: they prospered and grew powerful for a while, but then the weight of their endless wars wore them down until they couldn't do it any more.

Right now we are starting to see a shift in the center of world power to Asia, with China and India being the two big players, and Japan and Korea as mid-level players. The USA and Europe will decline into regional players - likely by mid-century.

quote:

I stand corrected. However, what was outsourced was low-skill jobs.

quote:

That's just a symptom of the consumption lifestyle we live here.

quote:

Are you saying that corporations don't pay taxes? Or, are you saying that paying taxes isn't enough?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

DesideriScuri
The problem isn't that there is inequality. And, it isn't in how great a disparity there is. It's all about the woes of those at the bottom. We have a social welfare net in the US. We have for the longest of times. It used to not be government provided, but that pretty much is it now.
The problem isn't that those in need can't get their needs met. It's that they can't get their wants met. There are people who take advantage of the system on both ends (game the welfare system when they aren't truly in need, and those wealthy that game the system to increase their wealth). The issue isn't what the poor lack that the rich have. It's that the poor are told they need to have what the rich have. People with low or no incomes don't need cell phones, cable TV, satellite dishes, etc. They don't need to have the new car, the latest and greatest gadget, etc.

This is a cute opinion. That's all it is. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? In the absence of supporting evidence, how do I tell the difference between your opinions and your fantasies?

quote:


If your (ahem) analysis is correct and the problem is "the poor are told they need to have what the rich have" then the obvious solution is to stop telling the poor these things. Do you think that this will solve anything? How on earth could such a 'solution' be implemented? This is straight from the la-la land of far Right ideology, nothing more.

quote:

quote:

Fomenting socioeconomic division is the best way to divide and cause unrest. Promising to close the divide is a great way to get elected after picking at the divide. Obama and the Democrats have played this masterfully (ignore for the moment the racial divide they are working on, too), but have not done what they promised on the other end. It's against their best interest to do so, too. If the poor no longer feel like they need, what can they be bribed with?

More la la land analysis. Socioeconomic divisions don't require formenting - they already exist. How can homelessness be justified in a society with so many billionaires? It is obscene that the two can co-exist in advanced wealthy countries such as yours or mine.

quote:

Foment -- verb (used with object)


1. to instigate or foster (discord, rebellion, etc.); promote the growth or development of: to foment trouble; to foment discontent.
2. to apply warm water or medicated liquid, ointments, etc., to (the surface of the body).


Synonyms:


incite, provoke, arouse, inflame, excite, stir up; encourage, stimulate.

quote:


Doesn't the fact that, at the moment, the US has locked up over 2 million of its citizens, that 6 million Americans (c2% of the entire population) is under 'correctional supervision' strike you as appalling? Do you see any connection between that statistic and the woefully inadequate welfare system in the USA?

quote:



It depends on why they are locked up and/or under correctional supervision. It strikes me as appalling that celebrities get better treatment than us commoners.

quote:


Modern societies operate on the basis of their citizens voluntarily consenting to follow the rules. It only takes a relatively small percentage of the population (say c10%) to withdraw their consent and actively oppose the power structure for the system to cease to function effectively. In the USA today, the bottom 40% of Americans own a tiny (single digit, from memory 3 or 4%) percentage of the USA's wealth, while the top 20% own 84% of the USA's wealth. That 40% owes nothing to the system, they have virtually no stake in it, or its continuing survival. As Bob Dylan said: When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose".
These figures are frightening, far more frightening that the national debt figures. If they are not turned around, and wealth distributed more evenly, then the USA will collapse from within in a bloodbath.

Are you saying it's okay to cause a bloodbath because you aren't making enough? Really? Wasn't Glenn Beck ridiculed for talking about blood in the streets?

Justice is supposed to be blind. That is, it's supposed to not care what you look like, what color your skin is, who your daddy is, etc. I don't have a problem with the number of blacks in our prison system. I don't care that their % of the prison population is so high, except that it should be lower because more caucasians should be in prison, too. If you broke a law where the accepted punishment is or includes prison, you should go to prison.





_____________________________

What I support:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to tweakabelle)

quote:

There will always be divisions. Always. There are divisions everywhere. Magnifying the divisions and using them to further divide and separate is what is being done. And, that's what shouldn't be done.

quote:

DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

DesideriScuri
The problem isn't that there is inequality. And, it isn't in how great a disparity there is. It's all about the woes of those at the bottom. We have a social welfare net in the US. We have for the longest of times. It used to not be government provided, but that pretty much is it now.
The problem isn't that those in need can't get their needs met. It's that they can't get their wants met. There are people who take advantage of the system on both ends (game the welfare system when they aren't truly in need, and those wealthy that game the system to increase their wealth). The issue isn't what the poor lack that the rich have. It's that the poor are told they need to have what the rich have. People with low or no incomes don't need cell phones, cable TV, satellite dishes, etc. They don't need to have the new car, the latest and greatest gadget, etc.

This is a cute opinion. That's all it is. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? In the absence of supporting evidence, how do I tell the difference between your opinions and your fantasies?


What part of that are you calling opinion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Virtually all of it. This bit: "We have a social welfare net in the US." is not opinion. The rest is.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

There will always be divisions. Always. There are divisions everywhere. Magnifying the divisions and using them to further divide and separate is what is being done. And, that's what shouldn't be done.

The ageless whine of the paternalistic privileged and powerful sniffing haughily at their "inferiors," fretfull that everyone should stay in their place.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

So, now I'm one of hte "paternalistic privileged?" And, I'm "sniffing haughily [sic]" at my inferiors?

quote:

I was privileged to have a stay-at-home mother through my formative years and a father that earned enough to make sure we never had need though we did not have everything we wanted. My parents were also involved (Mom much more than Dad) in my education and both pushed me to better myself, and were supportive.

quote:

I don't care what place anyone is in now, or in the future, provided it's an earned place. Earned through work, not manipulation and government force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Restyles

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Henry Ford understood that to sell his cars he had to pay his labor a decent wage.

Ahhh, another expert at perpetuating myths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, now I'm one of hte "paternalistic privileged?" And, I'm "sniffing haughily [sic]" at my inferiors?

Not you. The statement. Reminds me of Louis XVI removing his hat to meet as a commoner with the French Assembly. Yanno, I'm one of you really. Let's not magnify our divisions. Can't we all just get along?

quote:

quote:

I was privileged to have a stay-at-home mother through my formative years and a father that earned enough to make sure we never had need though we did not have everything we wanted. My parents were also involved (Mom much more than Dad) in my education and both pushed me to better myself, and were supportive.

Yes, those were wonderful days for me also. Now, both mom and dad have to work more likely.

quote:

quote:

I don't care what place anyone is in now, or in the future, provided it's an earned place. Earned through work, not manipulation and government force.

What you call government manipulation many of us see as a social and moral imperative to help each other. Still awaiting a response from you to the corporate tax avoidance I detailed above [#66] When are corporations going to carry their fair share of the social compact? It is not a question of magnifying the divisions but one of asserting social justice.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Virtually all of it. This bit: "We have a social welfare net in the US." is not opinion. The rest is.

And, that is your opinion.

lol

quote:

What you call government manipulation many of us see as a social and moral imperative to help each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

What you call government manipulation many of us see as a social and moral imperative to help each other.

This is a perceptive comment and draws the distinction between the Right and the rest of the body politic neatly.
Living in a culture imposes obligations and restraints on all of us, whether we like them or not. The Right refuses to acknowledge this, preferring to see culture are a free-for-all where the winners take all and the losers can go and get lost. This might be a good approach to survival if one is marooned on a desert island alone, but in modern complex societies it is as redundant as the Neanderthals.
Virtually all cultures reward those with the gifts to get ahead. Many of us judge a society or culture by how its treats the minorities, the less well off and the disadvantaged. Do we supply a minimum standard above which we all live? Does every child have an equal chance to get an education and to get ahead in life? Do we create space for others with differing lifestyles choices? Is there a reasonable distribution of power and wealth?
So do we prefer a culture founded on co-operation and generosity in spirit and in deed, or one driven by selfishness and greed? We in the West are fortunate to have these choices - there are many who don't. It is up to us to exercise those choices wisely

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

That all depends on what you want and what lifestyle you want. My sister and sister-in-law are both stay-at-home Moms. My brother makes very good money while my brother-in-law makes okay money. Their lifestyles are very different. Granted, my brother is 9 years older than my BIL, so it's no real surprise he's making better money and they have a much different lifestyle. But, both are happy with their lifestyles and both have their needs met and still have some wants not met.

quote:

I understand taxes are necessary. But, GE played by the rules when they paid no US taxes, and even got a credit here. They profited outside the US, but that's not the same thing. But, you do know what happens when taxes are raised on business, right? They find a way to pay less. Tax revenues are near all-time highs, and government wants to increase them so they can spend more. spending is at an all time high, too. why would anyone want to pay more taxes when we are already at near record highs?

quote:

It's a cycle that's out of control. The more government gives people "stuff," the more stuff people (and corporations, etc.) want. The more demand for "stuff" there, is, the more power government gets.