quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

We have to start by being better people, and electing better people. We have to have leaders who will do the right thing, no matter how much money is thrown at them to do something else. "

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Exactly. So, that the businessmen of the day hadn't yet adopted things they were forced to adopt by government doesn't mean they wouldn't have.

quote:


The Constitution doesn't have to prohibit the government from doing anything. It is only to authorize the government to do something. That's part of the problem. The US Government now assumes that it can do anything it wants unless specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. That is, the US Government assumes it has all the authority unless it's prohibited, rather than the people having all the authority unless they grant it to government.

quote:


The sad thing is, there are people who game the system and are rewarded for not actually working. There are also people who can not provide for themselves. The latter are the ones who are "truly needy" and the ones I mention in my signature lines.

quote:


The Anti-Federalists demanded the Bill of Rights be added. I think it was Monroe that said the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution didn't grant government the authority to do any of those things, so there wasn't a need to specifically prohibit them.

quote:


I would say we don't have a country full of illiterate peasants and widespread poverty isn't because of government, but because of who we are as a people.

quote:


The "rules" for State and Local governments are different than they are for the Federal government, too.

quote:


Go for it. Who shall we compare the US to? Which citizenry has more "stuff" than the US citizenry? Let's compare the poor in the US to the poor anywhere else. We have a much higher standard of living than most places.

quote:


How can they be better people because of the struggles they had to work through, yet expect others to be better people without having to go through those same struggles? The idea that we learn from out past is more about not repeating our past mistakes and building on the "right" things we did. I can't build upon the "right" choices and toils the President and First Lady went through. It doesn't work that way.

quote:


I'm all for divorcing money from government, Zonie. There is too much influence by those that have great wealth. The solution isn't to take that wealth and spread it around, but to stop the wealthy from having influence. The coalition we have between Wall Street and DC is terrible, and isn't going to really help the country, as a whole. Neither will spreading the wealth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We have to start by being better people, and electing better people. We have to have leaders who will do the right thing, no matter how much money is thrown at them to do something else. "

I have to wonder when you think this is going to happen
Until it miraculously happens, we let the 1% of the US run the country? and people like the kochs spending nearly a billion for the GOP???
How will you become a better people?
How will you all elect only better leaders? who decides what a better leader is.
curious minds wanna know
because, I dont see it happening
This is Not an anti american thing in any way cos its not happened in any other civilised country.
The rich rule, you seem to be fine with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Exactly. So, that the businessmen of the day hadn't yet adopted things they were forced to adopt by government doesn't mean they wouldn't have.

Doubtful, especially since even to this day, business is still complaining about interference from the government and decrying it as a bad thing. If they were willing to adopt these things voluntarily, I don't think they'd be complaining so loudly.

quote:

quote:

The Constitution doesn't have to prohibit the government from doing anything. It is only to authorize the government to do something. That's part of the problem. The US Government now assumes that it can do anything it wants unless specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. That is, the US Government assumes it has all the authority unless it's prohibited, rather than the people having all the authority unless they grant it to government.

The Constitution was left somewhat open-ended in that regard, since the Founders believed that subsequent generations should have been smart enough to figure out some things on their own. But the original Constitution gave the government power to levy taxes and spend money, without really specifying which things they can spend money on. That was left to the discretion of Congress. That doesn't mean they can do anything they want; they still have to support and guarantee the rights of the People. But since the action of government giving money to poor people doesn't directly infringe on any citizen's rights, I don't see how it can be viewed as unconstitutional in any way.
They already have the power to tax and take our money. How they actually spend it is up to the Representatives and the People who elect them. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't protect the voters from making bad choices at the polls.

quote:

quote:

The sad thing is, there are people who game the system and are rewarded for not actually working. There are also people who can not provide for themselves. The latter are the ones who are "truly needy" and the ones I mention in my signature lines.

Yes, this is true. There are those who game the system, and this is just as outrageous to those who support social welfare programs, since the idea is to get money to those who need it, not to those who are gaming the system.

quote:

quote:

The Anti-Federalists demanded the Bill of Rights be added. I think it was Monroe that said the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution didn't grant government the authority to do any of those things, so there wasn't a need to specifically prohibit them.

And as it turned out, the Bill of Rights is often considered more important and valuable than the Constitution itself.

quote:

quote:

I would say we don't have a country full of illiterate peasants and widespread poverty isn't because of government, but because of who we are as a people.

I would say it's a variety of factors which have made America what it is today. The actions of our government have certainly made a difference over the course of history, although it might be an oversimplification to say that America is better off because of our government. But it's also not due to capitalism either. It wasn't capitalists who mandated public education to reduce illiteracy; they couldn't care less about such things.
Capitalists never had much of a stake in reducing poverty either. In fact, I think the main reason they oppose welfare programs is not due to some emotional appeal to "rewarding laziness" or insinuating some kind of "work ethic." Government programs to aid poor people have taken away the capitalists' captive workforce which they need to bolster their profits. It gives people the right to say "fuck you" to bad employers who treat them poorly, while still being guaranteed the necessities of survival. Capitalists prefer it if there is a large workforce of desperate people who have no other choice but to work or starve. Social programs allow more freedom of choice for the people and reduces the advantage held by capitalists, who eventually pulled a "fuck you" themselves by outsourcing to countries with more captive and disadvantaged workforces.
This might become more and more of an issue in the years to come, as advancements in robotics, AI, and other technologies will increase the number of superfluous workers. All the necessary work for society can still get done with fewer workers, although this would lead to a larger percentage of the population being idle. From a business owner's viewpoint, it's certainly more efficient to get the same job done by 10 people as opposed to 100.
So, the question will be: What to do with all those extra workers who aren't needed anymore? Do we, as a society, just give them some low-wage "make work" jobs just so we can feel good about ourselves that we're not rewarding laziness? Is this particular emotional consideration really that important to our nation's survival?

quote:

quote:

The "rules" for State and Local governments are different than they are for the Federal government, too.

True, although they can't supersede or override the Federal government.

quote:

quote:

Go for it. Who shall we compare the US to? Which citizenry has more "stuff" than the US citizenry? Let's compare the poor in the US to the poor anywhere else. We have a much higher standard of living than most places.

It depends on which factors we want to use as measurements and basis for comparison, although I think we'd have to look at more than just how much "stuff" anyone has. We'd have to measure the overall quality of housing, the percentage of homelessness, the quality of our educational system (which is often criticized for being behind much of the rest of the industrialized world), the quality of the healthcare system (which is also lagging behind), the quality of the roads and transportation/communication infrastructure (which has also diminished; we can't even fix the potholes in the road anymore) - just to name a few key factors one can examine and compare with other countries.

quote:

Or even something like the quality of our airlines. I recall reading a survey a few years ago of the world's major airlines which had a 5-star rating system, and no US-based carrier was able rank above 3 stars. That's a disgrace. We're Americans; we should strive to be the best, and yet, here we have a semi-monopolistic industry full of these wonderful capitalists who are perfectly content with being third-rate. Where is their sense of pride?

quote:

These may be relatively minor things in the grand scheme of things. In no way am I saying that life is bad here, but I think that we should pay attention and not get too overconfident. Ideally, if we're in a global economy in peaceful, friendly, orderly, fair competition with the rest of the world, then we should compete to win, wouldn't you say? And if it's not peaceful, friendly, orderly, and/or fair competition, then we may have a few complications when trying to make comparisons.
We also have to keep in mind the other factors which have made the U.S. into a superpower with a relatively high standard of living compared to much of the rest of the world. For one thing, we've been incredibly fortunate due to our geography and the circumstances which existed at the time our nation was established. Momentarily setting aside the moral implications of how we managed to acquire large chunks of territory teeming with resources and arable land, it was also at just the right latitude and buffered by two oceans to inhibit invasion or interference from Europe or elsewhere in the world.

quote:

Another key factor, at least when looking back on the Founders and their immediate successors, the leaders of this country weren't merely interested in building up a capitalist enterprise just so they could have a lot of "stuff." I won't say they were angels, and no doubt some were quite ruthless, but they also wanted to build a great and powerful nation capable of providing for itself and defending itself against all enemies. That's why it was so vital that we be the United States and not merely a confederation.
This is why the Civil War is considered such a vitally important turning point in U.S. history. That doesn't make the Founding Fathers any less important, but we also have to consider the views and philosophies of subsequent generations leading up to and immediately after the Civil War.

quote:

Capitalism, in and of itself, is only one part of an overall package that has made America what it is. That's the main reason I have a problem with what might be perceived as an "ultra-capitalist" point of view which seems to place an excessive emphasis on capitalism to the exclusion of all other parts of that package.

quote:

quote:

How can they be better people because of the struggles they had to work through, yet expect others to be better people without having to go through those same struggles? The idea that we learn from out past is more about not repeating our past mistakes and building on the "right" things we did. I can't build upon the "right" choices and toils the President and First Lady went through. It doesn't work that way.

I think the flaw in your premise here is that you seem to be implying that people have to go through the same struggles as others in order to be "better," as if there's only one or a few ways for an individual to become "better." I think the bottom line of what they were trying to say was that we should increase the number of ways, opportunities, and paths one can take in order to become "better."
Whether or not people become "better" only through struggle or adversity is a larger philosophical issue which might be worthy of debate at some point. I think there is an infinite number of ways an individual or society as a whole can better itself, but I don't think they all involve unnecessary struggle or adversity. One might say that life itself is an endless struggle, as everyone has their own row to hoe. But in the spirit of individuality, struggle is also an individual thing. People can't go through the same struggles as someone else, since they're not someone else or another person.
In fact, that's where some people might criticize the President on some things, as he may solve one problem and end one struggle, but that may have the effect of starting up other kinds of struggles. I guess that's just the cause and effect of politics.

quote:

quote:

I'm all for divorcing money from government, Zonie. There is too much influence by those that have great wealth. The solution isn't to take that wealth and spread it around, but to stop the wealthy from having influence. The coalition we have between Wall Street and DC is terrible, and isn't going to really help the country, as a whole. Neither will spreading the wealth.

It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the capitalists on Wall Street and the politicians in DC. I see them as part of the same coalition, the same "gang" already, even if they might wear different hats or have different titles. But it's not just a matter of backroom deals, but also the effect money has on the media which can in turn influence public opinion. There's also the issue of being able to afford the best lawyers who give monied interests a tremendous advantage in the judicial branch of government, which represents a great deal of power in this so-called "nation of laws." Kickbacks and "gifts" to congressmen seem like small potatoes by comparison.
But I do agree that the answer lies in reforming government, not necessarily Wall Street directly. Besides, much of the wealth is out of the hands of the US government, although there might be some ways the government could get it back from these countries which harbor these offshore accounts. That may be the ultimate solution to the problem outlined in the OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Speculation. It's worth about as much as mine.

quote:


The Federal government is only supposed to be able to tax to support the programs policies necessary and proper to fulfilling a granted authority. Taxing to give to someone else isn't taxing for a Constitutionally authorized purpose. So, that's not exactly cut and dried, either.

The Constitution is amendable. It says so in the document itself. Since I was born, there have only been two amendments ratified. The last one was ratified just under 23 years ago (5/7/1992). You want to change the Constitution to allow the Federal government to have other authorities? Go for it. Pass an amendment. That's the only Constitutional way to do so.

quote:


I have not stated that those who support social welfare aren't outraged at those who scam the system, but a great many of them fearmonger when reforms are mentioned to make it harder to game the system.

quote:


That depends on how the Documents are used. I contend the US Constitution isn't being used as it was intended. It's ignored more than followed, and the general theme is that the Federal government has all the power and authority unless it grants it to others. Absolutely not the way the Constitution was written, or intended.

quote:


Government actions certainly have made a difference, and not all of them have been good, either. The problem, more than not, imo, is that people don't look to create their own jobs, rather relying on others to do it for them. If they don't like the jobs that are out there, they whine and bitch about Capitalism, crony Capitalism, etc. But, it's never their fault. It's never the CPA grad who can't find a job because there are 100 other CPA grads per job. It's the capitalists fault for not creating enough jobs.

quote:


If more people would find out what they can do and start offering their labors to others for money, more people could make enough money to support themselves and their families. If they don't like their position, they have every right to make a go of it on their own, or find another employer who will hire them for a better position.

quote:


In the age of information we're in, a shitty employer will have a tarnished image and will end up having to pay a premium to get employees it needs. But, until there aren't enough people willing to work for that employer at the wages/benefits/conditions offered, why should business change what they are doing? The market for employees is telling them they're okay for now.

quote:


What do we do with all those workers who aren't required for other jobs? Gee, I don't know, maybe they could create a different job? A line operator may have been displaced by a robot, but that doesn't mean he or she can't swing a hammer and be a carpenter, does it?

quote:


Where I work, there are operators who have complained about the number of robots we have and at how many fewer jobs there are because of it. When you look at what the company does, the robots are doing things that are significantly safer for robots to do than for humans to do. There's also no way my employer would be doing what it's doing for who we're supplying without the robots we have. Humans simply can't do what these robots do at the productivity levels the robots do it at. But, because we have those robots, there are other jobs that wouldn't have been necessary, like mine. I'm very happy with what I do, and I "play with robots" every day at work.

quote:


Unless the Federal government is acting outside it's Constitutional authorities.

quote:


Quality of housing? Go for it.
Quality of our government education system? Not sure how you're going to support yourself on that one. [8D]
Where has all the money gone that has been paid (via taxes) to maintain our infrastructure? I'm not so sure it's gone to maintain it. We can fix potholes, if we choose to do so. But, we have "other" things that we "have" to do that suck money away.

quote:

Maybe if it wasn't such a monopolistic venture, it might have more competition to drive the quality up?

quote:


Did you just say we have a relatively high standard of living compared to much of the rest of the world? Isn't that what I claimed?

quote:


We have it good here. Of that, there is no doubt. I'm not sure there aren't countries in South America that have the same or similar climate to the US, that are also bordered by oceans. I'm not sure how that furthers your cause, though.

quote:


Of course we do. Yet, most of the Founders would have supported a less intrusive government (thus the limited authorities granted by the Constitution). They felt that the Articles of Confederation created a Federal government that didn't have enough authority to do what they felt a Federal government should do. Thus, they gave more power to the Federal government, via the Constitution, but it wasn't an unlimited authorization to do whatever. That's pretty much what we have now, under both Democrats and Republicans.

quote:


It works, though. Capitalism works if you let it. If you don't privatize the profits and socialize the losses (bailouts), things will work themselves out. It won't always be pretty and sweet, but those times will be an effective reminder for the future. I've said it before, losses are as vital to a properly working model of capitalism as profits.

quote:


If we were to force people to repatriate their money, it will end up being a one-time tax boon. After that, though, the increase will disappear.

quote:


People wanted to save for college tax free (529 plans) and now there is a risk those will be taxed. That's likely to be the death of 529 plans, and how pissed will those who can't get their money out be? A female friend of mine in MI moved to where she did because the public school district has specific programs the high school education can be tailored for. There is an engineering program. There is a strong program for trades, architecture, carpentry, etc. IMO, there is a school that is going to turn out kids better prepared to support themselves. Two years of community college might not do much for someone, like learning a trade does.

quote:


It's not about how much that person has, or that other person has. Their earnings aren't necessarily going to reduce yours, unless you're competing with them. Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's earnings haven't had a negative impact on my earnings. There's nothing saying that if they hadn't earned less that anyone else would have earned more, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Speculation. It's worth about as much as mine.

Except that we do know that the business community and conservative economists constantly decry government interference.

quote:

quote:

The Federal government is only supposed to be able to tax to support the programs policies necessary and proper to fulfilling a granted authority. Taxing to give to someone else isn't taxing for a Constitutionally authorized purpose. So, that's not exactly cut and dried, either.
The Constitution is amendable. It says so in the document itself. Since I was born, there have only been two amendments ratified. The last one was ratified just under 23 years ago (5/7/1992). You want to change the Constitution to allow the Federal government to have other authorities? Go for it. Pass an amendment. That's the only Constitutional way to do so.

In this case, I think it's you who might think to "go for it" and make an argument to the Supreme Court that social welfare programs are unconstitutional. Current policy would indicate that the government can levy taxes and give some of it to the poor and disadvantaged who qualify for such programs. If it was unconstitutional, don't you think the Supreme Court would have put a stop to it by now?

quote:

quote:

I have not stated that those who support social welfare aren't outraged at those who scam the system, but a great many of them fearmonger when reforms are mentioned to make it harder to game the system.

It would probably depend on what kind of reforms are being mentioned and whether or not it would truly make it harder to game the system. If the tone of the overall debate is anything to go by (not just in this thread, but in the public eye as well), it would seem self evident that conservatives, the business community, and many of their fellow travelers harbor a great deal of contempt and scorn for the lower classes. The fearmongering may not be fear of reforms, but only when such reforms are proposed by those who hold such obvious disdain for certain classes of people.

quote:

quote:

That depends on how the Documents are used. I contend the US Constitution isn't being used as it was intended. It's ignored more than followed, and the general theme is that the Federal government has all the power and authority unless it grants it to others. Absolutely not the way the Constitution was written, or intended.

Well, then, I guess your task would be to go before the Supreme Court and inform them of these wanton violations of the Constitution. As you're so fond of saying to me: Go for it.

quote:

quote:

Government actions certainly have made a difference, and not all of them have been good, either. The problem, more than not, imo, is that people don't look to create their own jobs, rather relying on others to do it for them. If they don't like the jobs that are out there, they whine and bitch about Capitalism, crony Capitalism, etc. But, it's never their fault. It's never the CPA grad who can't find a job because there are 100 other CPA grads per job. It's the capitalists fault for not creating enough jobs.

That's not exactly how the argument goes. Generally, capitalists are blamed for stacking the deck in their favor and not playing fair ball. Some might be considered nihilistic, amoral, and reckless - which would make sense when examining the establishment's tendency to mostly turn the blind eye to corruption and organized crime. To allow such people to hold positions of influence and power in society may be considered dangerous to the well-being of the country as a whole. It's not necessarily due to "class envy," although there may be some of that. However, many others are quite content with what they have and don't want/need any more, while their disdain for capitalism is more civic-minded in that they honestly believe that it will harm the country as a whole and will weaken our position globally.

quote:

As far as people creating their own jobs, there is still quite a lot of that going on. I don't know that people necessarily "rely on others" to create jobs for them. People will still find ways to survive even if those "others" aren't around to create jobs for them. But if those others already do exist and they have jobs available, then it's expected that there might be public observations made about the wages, working conditions, and the general quality and character of the particular business in question, both in how they treat their employees as well as their customers. And if it looks like they're up to no good, then people might make observations about that as well. That would explain where all the "whining" comes from.

quote:

quote:

If more people would find out what they can do and start offering their labors to others for money, more people could make enough money to support themselves and their families. If they don't like their position, they have every right to make a go of it on their own, or find another employer who will hire them for a better position.

Theoretically, that's what a lot of these "liberal" social programs are designed to do, to help people find out what they can do and maximize their potential as human beings. Welfare is not meant to be permanent state of affairs, as there are also programs for education, job training, behavioral health services and drug treatment for those who need it. The whole idea is to help people live better lives and become more productive citizens which will benefit the entire society. But again, it was largely due to government action making the difference here.

quote:

quote:

In the age of information we're in, a shitty employer will have a tarnished image and will end up having to pay a premium to get employees it needs. But, until there aren't enough people willing to work for that employer at the wages/benefits/conditions offered, why should business change what they are doing? The market for employees is telling them they're okay for now.

That's not entirely true when it comes to businesses which outsource and/or hire undocumented workers who are often said to take the jobs that Americans don't want. But if the domestic job market is such that employers can't fill the jobs they need, why are they in that business in the first place? Why resort to such underhanded measures when they could just as easily go into another business?

quote:

And as you mention the age of information, that's also key, and I agree that the flow of information must remain free and unimpeded from outside interference, no matter if it's corporate interference or government interference. Perhaps there should also be a requirement for employers to adhere to truth in advertising when it comes to job offers. If someone is a shitty employer, they should be required to give full disclosure to any applicant before making any job offers. That would probably solve most of the problem right there.

quote:

quote:

What do we do with all those workers who aren't required for other jobs? Gee, I don't know, maybe they could create a different job? A line operator may have been displaced by a robot, but that doesn't mean he or she can't swing a hammer and be a carpenter, does it?

Well, they could eventually create robots to do those jobs as well.

quote:

quote:

Where I work, there are operators who have complained about the number of robots we have and at how many fewer jobs there are because of it. When you look at what the company does, the robots are doing things that are significantly safer for robots to do than for humans to do. There's also no way my employer would be doing what it's doing for who we're supplying without the robots we have. Humans simply can't do what these robots do at the productivity levels the robots do it at. But, because we have those robots, there are other jobs that wouldn't have been necessary, like mine. I'm very happy with what I do, and I "play with robots" every day at work.

I was reading an article a while back about how factories are becoming more automated. Instead of having to pay hundreds of workers on an assembly line, the businesses would put in robots and have to pay only the technicians and engineers mainly working at computer terminals. But since there would only be a relative few of them, the business can still make a good profit while giving them decent salary and benefit packages. Of course, much of it might depend on how much further they can develop and refine the technology, as well as dealing with the inevitable societal and political resistance.
It's interesting to note that through much of human history, one of the realities which might have molded our perspective was that most of the time, there was usually more work to be done than people willing to do it. In a classic farm/village system, there was a lot of work that had to be done for the community's survival, so anyone who wasn't working was rightly scorned for not pulling their own weight. Larger societies had to resort to slavery and serfdom because they just couldn't find enough people willing to the jobs they wanted to get done. Now, with a higher population and more machines to do the work of humans, we have more people than is actually needed to complete the work needed to maintain society. But then, there are still a lot of people who believe, as a philosophical and moral principle, that "everyone must work to pull their own weight," even if there may not be any practical societal need to do so.

quote:

quote:

Unless the Federal government is acting outside it's Constitutional authorities.

Ultimately, that would be decided by the Supreme Court, but even that hasn't been entirely consistent over the course of history. Even in the rest of the government, one can find scads of lawyers in the Executive and Legislative branches as well - and all over State and local governments. Even with all these brilliant legal minds at work, they still can't seem to figure out what's "legal."

quote:

Quality of housing? Go for it.
Quality of our government education system? Not sure how you're going to support yourself on that one. [8D]
Where has all the money gone that has been paid (via taxes) to maintain our infrastructure? I'm not so sure it's gone to maintain it. We can fix potholes, if we choose to do so. But, we have "other" things that we "have" to do that suck money away.

quote:

I don't think that we really dispute that the U.S. is a great country with a high standard of living, and we're certainly a lot better off than a lot of other countries. But that's all the more reason why we should be concerned when there appears to be a slow and steady deterioration of this standard. It's not that we're not better off than other countries, but perhaps we're not as good as we could be considering our size, wealth, industrial capacity, and the generally favorable geographical position we happen to be in.

quote:

quote:

Maybe if it wasn't such a monopolistic venture, it might have more competition to drive the quality up?

That might be the way to go, although it just further confirms my point at the top of this post in that capitalists won't change or improve unless their backs are to the wall and they have no other choice.

quote:

quote:

Did you just say we have a relatively high standard of living compared to much of the rest of the world? Isn't that what I claimed?

Yes, I think we're in agreement on this particular point, although where we differ is that you seem to think that our well-being has been solely dependent upon abstract ideological factors, while I would look at other more tangible factors as contributory causes of our overall success as a nation.

quote:

quote:

We have it good here. Of that, there is no doubt. I'm not sure there aren't countries in South America that have the same or similar climate to the US, that are also bordered by oceans. I'm not sure how that furthers your cause, though.

Well, again, the reasons for the differences in the way various countries turn out are quite complex. Systemically, we actually share much in common with South America, as they revolted against the rule of their European colonial masters just as we did. But there are clearly geographical differences, but this might be getting too long to go into a discussion about comparative geography.
However, I will say that a key difference also relates to our own history and actions in that part of the world. Being buffered by two oceans was helpful for our own defense, but related to that was a concerted effort to keep our "soft underbelly" protected as well - which was why the Monroe Doctrine was so important in our early history and set the precedent for how we planned to operate in our own hemisphere.
Over time, our relationship with Latin America became hegemonic, as we were able to gain a decisive strategic advantage and keep these nations under our thumb. It wasn't merely to exploit them (although that was part of it), but also to prevent other major powers from gaining a foothold which could potentially threaten us on our own doorstep. Naturally, South America's perceived weakness and economic disadvantage would be the consequences of such policies. One can see even worse situations in Africa and South Asia where other major powers ruled over them and ended up leaving a huge mess which is the primary source of most of the world's troubles these days.
The bottom line is: We won, they lost. Yay for us! We get to live in luxury, and they get to live in shit. Even the poor living here get to live better than they do, which is just a bonus for being on the winning side. If that's the way of the world, then so be it, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this was all some noble effort fostered by a bunch of Dudley Do-Rights fighting the good fight for freedom and capitalism. It is what it is and always was. However, one difference between then and now is that nowadays, the consequences for failure or abuse can be far more catastrophic than they once were. We have to be more mindful of how we conduct ourselves, as the world isn't the same as it used to be.

quote:

quote:

Of course we do. Yet, most of the Founders would have supported a less intrusive government (thus the limited authorities granted by the Constitution). They felt that the Articles of Confederation created a Federal government that didn't have enough authority to do what they felt a Federal government should do. Thus, they gave more power to the Federal government, via the Constitution, but it wasn't an unlimited authorization to do whatever. That's pretty much what we have now, under both Democrats and Republicans.

It's an imperfect system all the way around. I don't think any political system is ever going to be perfect. I think that concentrating on the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances was the way to go...as long as those checks and balances actually work. If they don't, then we'll have to find ways of fixing that and shoring up whatever weaknesses there might be in the system.

quote:

There have been times where the government might have violated the Constitution, such as during times of war or other crisis of that magnitude. That doesn't give them unlimited authorization to do whatever they want, but it's not so black-and-white as to simply adhere to a rulebook. I suppose it's up to historians, legal scholars, and Americans' own perceptions of history to determine whether the government was justified in overstepping its authority. Many people still debate and disagree on these things, and perhaps it's the debate itself which is our greatest strength. We don't just accept a simple "rulebook" as the final word; We The People are the final word, for better or worse.

quote:

quote:

It works, though. Capitalism works if you let it. If you don't privatize the profits and socialize the losses (bailouts), things will work themselves out. It won't always be pretty and sweet, but those times will be an effective reminder for the future. I've said it before, losses are as vital to a properly working model of capitalism as profits.

Everything "works" for a while. At every stage of history we've had different ways and means of exchanging goods and services and measuring economic success. Capitalism is only one such method, but the problem I see is that its advocates tend to imply that capitalism is the best we're ever going to get, that we've reached the pinnacle of our success and progress as a species and that we can't go any higher. We've reached the plateau, the end of our journey.

quote:

quote:

If we were to force people to repatriate their money, it will end up being a one-time tax boon. After that, though, the increase will disappear.

Not necessarily, depending on how much faith you have in the American people to invest that money for productive purposes. Perhaps one way would be to provide college education for free for anyone who wants it, so that people wouldn't have to save for college, in which case they wouldn't have to worry about their 529 plans being taxed. See how nicely it can work out?

quote:

quote:

People wanted to save for college tax free (529 plans) and now there is a risk those will be taxed. That's likely to be the death of 529 plans, and how pissed will those who can't get their money out be? A female friend of mine in MI moved to where she did because the public school district has specific programs the high school education can be tailored for. There is an engineering program. There is a strong program for trades, architecture, carpentry, etc. IMO, there is a school that is going to turn out kids better prepared to support themselves. Two years of community college might not do much for someone, like learning a trade does.

There are distinct differences in how education is run from state to state and district to district. There's no denying this, although there's monumental resistance to any kind of centralized control over public schools.

quote:

quote:

It's not about how much that person has, or that other person has. Their earnings aren't necessarily going to reduce yours, unless you're competing with them. Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's earnings haven't had a negative impact on my earnings. There's nothing saying that if they hadn't earned less that anyone else would have earned more, either.

I would suggest that those who live in America and benefit from living under our system should give something back. I don't believe that anyone should get a free ride or be able to take the money and run. Those who have billions have taken from America, and they have to give something back in return at a level commensurate with the amount of benefit they've received. It's called earning your money, something that every good capitalist should be able to understand. And if they're not willing to work to earn their money, then we the people have every moral right to demand our money back.
It's only fair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Speculation. It's worth about as much as mine.

Except that we do know that the business community and conservative economists constantly decry government interference.

Government is constantly attempting to increase it's interference in the market. I'm with the business community on that one. There absolutely is a need for a certain level of government involvement in the market for optimal market functioning. I firmly believe we've long passed that level. Who is government supposed to "protect" with interference? Consumers? If goods are more expensive than they need to be because of some government regulation (notice I said "need to be"), is government protecting consumers? Is that really a regulation that needs to exist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

A new report from UK charity Oxfam found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99% it was revealed yesterday.

The report confirmed recent trends that wealth was being increasingly concentrated in a few hands while large sections of the rest of the world was often mired in poverty and hopelessness.

The UK paper The Guardian reported:
"The charity’s research, published on Monday, shows that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the best-off 1% has increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, while the least well-off 80% currently own just 5.5%. Oxfam added that on current trends the richest 1% would own more than 50% of the world’s wealth by 2016."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland

Is this scandalous situation defensible? Isn't it time that we took wealth re-distribution seriously? Isn't it time that wealth was put to use to benefit the whole of society and the world rather than being the private possession of a tiny number of hugely powerful and influential individuals and families? Short of violent revolution, how can we put this deplorable situation to rights? Indeed, will a failure to democratise wealth lead to violent revolution?

Your views comments and opinions .....?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

But we are all dancing around why the super rich, mighty corporations, and very secretive organizations (i.e. Super PACs) virtually control things: money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

But we are all dancing around why the super rich, mighty corporations, and very secretive organizations (i.e. Super PACs) virtually control things: money.

There does seem to be something different about the United States when it comes to money.

Take the political system: on paper it's more democratic than most but because of the money involved in campaigning, in practice it is less democratic than many.

Seems money is all pervasive, whether industry or government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Government is constantly attempting to increase it's interference in the market. I'm with the business community on that one. There absolutely is a need for a certain level of government involvement in the market for optimal market functioning. I firmly believe we've long passed that level. Who is government supposed to "protect" with interference? Consumers? If goods are more expensive than they need to be because of some government regulation (notice I said "need to be"), is government protecting consumers? Is that really a regulation that needs to exist?

quote:


Not necessarily. Who has challenged the Constitutionality of those programs?

quote:


At the moment, those challenges would all lose. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the Federal government can tax us for not buying a qualified health insurance. How that was ruled Constitutional, I'll never know. There is no authority in the US Constitution that grants that.

quote:


I do agree with that, but it's always presented in a way to provoke fear, regardless of the validity of that fear. Bad programs have been proposed. Bad ideas have been proposed. Hell, bad legislation has been passed. Those things are valid things to invoke fear about. But, not everything.

quote:


So fond of saying to you? How many times have I said it to you? I just did a search for that phrase, and it only came out wtih on hit, and it wasn't even from this thread! [:D] It was in response to tazzy, too, not you.

quote:


Government can protect consumers by forcing businesses to follow "fair game" practices (like truth in advertising laws, listing the ingredients), so people know what they are actually buying. Capitalism isn't business currying favor with government and government protecting big businesses from loss, bankruptcy, failure, competition, etc.

quote:


Do you forget the many OWS supporters who were all about opposing Wall Street because they couldn't find jobs after graduating?

quote:


Because people can't do that on their own? Because there isn't any charitable organization that does that sort of thing?

quote:


The job market may have changed. There may not be enough qualified talent in the local applicant pool for those jobs. I don't support employers hiring illegals. I believe we need to ratchet up the penalties as part of overall immigration reform.

quote:


The analysis of who is shitty and who is not is subjective, so what employer is going to go ahead and claim they are shitty? Information about an employer can be found. Ask around. You'll find someone who knows someone and you'll eventually find out about an employer. This ain't rocket surgery, Zonie.

quote:

quote:

quote:

What do we do with all those workers who aren't required for other jobs? Gee, I don't know, maybe they could create a different job? A line operator may have been displaced by a robot, but that doesn't mean he or she can't swing a hammer and be a carpenter, does it?

Well, they could eventually create robots to do those jobs as well.

But, until they do...

quote:


There is always work to do. Always.

quote:


And, it's up to States to stand up for their rights against the over-stepping of the Constitution by the Federal government. It can happen.

quote:


Who says it's a paragon of virtue?!? Certainly, the people in Ferguson, Cleveland, and NY don't think law enforcement is a paragon of virtue.

quote:


Anyone who follows any top stories knows our military has it's own dirty laundry. But, there is a difference between the Federal government having programs for the military to defend our Nation, and the Federal government having programs redistributing money within our borders. One's in the Constitution...

quote:


The analysis of why there is a slow and steady deterioration, isn't so cut and dried, either, Zonie. That's part of the problem.

quote:


Why is it a monopoly? Is it a government sanctioned monopoly? If so, might that not be an area where government steps back and allows competition to flourish? Is it a monopoly, or a near monopoly because government regulation is hindering competition?

quote:


We continue to be such oppressors, don't we? [8|]

quote:


They do give something back. That's just it. They are paying taxes; lots of taxes. The highest tax brackets are shouldering the greatest share of the Federal Income tax burden. People who have earned billions pay more than those who earn millions, thousands, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Government is constantly attempting to increase it's interference in the market. I'm with the business community on that one. There absolutely is a need for a certain level of government involvement in the market for optimal market functioning. I firmly believe we've long passed that level. Who is government supposed to "protect" with interference? Consumers? If goods are more expensive than they need to be because of some government regulation (notice I said "need to be"), is government protecting consumers? Is that really a regulation that needs to exist?

Depending on the circumstances, they might be protecting consumers, employees, or sometimes even the public at large, such as when environmental regulations are passed. And the government doesn't just do so willy-nilly; there was usually some sort of need which presented itself which caused people to call for regulation in the first place. So, that would beg the question as to why the business community can't just behave itself and stop getting into mischief. Why do they constantly create the need for regulation and then complain about the consequences after the fact?

quote:

And why would business be so quick to blame government for regulations when they should be blaming the bad apples in their own industry who caused it to happen in the first place? At least if business were willing to admit their own part in bringing government regulations upon themselves, they might have a bit more integrity.

quote:

Government has its faults, but one thing I'll say that they have over on big business: At least (our) government isn't afraid to admit its own faults. Nearly every political candidate who has ever existed has vowed to "clean up government." But you just don't see that in the corporate world, which is not unlike entering some kind of Orwellian alternative reality full of zombies and Stepford Wives. Every corporation is its own miniature cult of personality in which "Caesar" can do no wrong (even if the company is showing record losses).

quote:

quote:

Not necessarily. Who has challenged the Constitutionality of those programs?

Offhand, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if there have been challenges, although I can't recall any at the moment.

quote:

quote:

At the moment, those challenges would all lose. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the Federal government can tax us for not buying a qualified health insurance. How that was ruled Constitutional, I'll never know. There is no authority in the US Constitution that grants that.

Well, that's the whole issue, isn't it? It doesn't matter what you or I say about the Constitution, since it's the Supreme Court which has the power to make the ruling, not us. If they say that "red is blue" or "down is up," then that's what we're stuck with. Of course, the Supreme Court has made some rulings which have been quite favorable to business, so I can't see how conservatives would be totally dissatisfied with the Court's rulings overall.

quote:

quote:

I do agree with that, but it's always presented in a way to provoke fear, regardless of the validity of that fear. Bad programs have been proposed. Bad ideas have been proposed. Hell, bad legislation has been passed. Those things are valid things to invoke fear about. But, not everything.

Yes, I see your point, although you've been around long enough to know that that's how political rhetoric often works. It plays on people's fears, although it's often tailored for whatever audience it's directed at. Conservatives and liberals are both guilty of this, so I'm not giving anyone a pass on this. Politics is dirty.

quote:

quote:

So fond of saying to you? How many times have I said it to you? I just did a search for that phrase, and it only came out wtih on hit, and it wasn't even from this thread! [:D] It was in response to tazzy, too, not you.

It was when you said that I should try to amend the Constitution, as well as the part where you were suggesting making comparisons between the US and other countries.

quote:

quote:

Government can protect consumers by forcing businesses to follow "fair game" practices (like truth in advertising laws, listing the ingredients), so people know what they are actually buying. Capitalism isn't business currying favor with government and government protecting big businesses from loss, bankruptcy, failure, competition, etc.

And all of this is fine in theory, but it has to be put into practice that way as well. There also needs to be competent enforcement mechanisms actively working to detect and deal with any indications of wrongdoing or mischief on the part of the business community. Something with real teeth in it, too, not just measly fines which are just a drop in the bucket or a criminal "sentence" of six months at a country club. Put them in Gitmo or the Supermax.

quote:

It would seem to me that it would be just as much in the interests of those capitalists who consider themselves honorable and decent to come down hard on the bad apples among them, don't you think? I can see where the "good" capitalists might try to dissociate themselves from the "dark side" of capitalism...but they never really seem to want to go far enough.

quote:

quote:

Do you forget the many OWS supporters who were all about opposing Wall Street because they couldn't find jobs after graduating?

I don't think that was the only reason for the OWS demonstrations, although I wasn't there myself, so I can't say for certain. My understanding was that it was a cacophony of various individual causes with no real central issue, other than a lot of people were pissed off about a lot of different things.
So, does that mean that if they could find jobs, they'd be perfectly okay with Wall Street? What were they saying? "You Wall Street capitalists suck! But...if you give me a six-figure salary and a corner office, I might reconsider my view." There's a way to go into a job interview. [:D]

quote:

quote:

Because people can't do that on their own? Because there isn't any charitable organization that does that sort of thing?

There are charitable organizations, many of which do very good work, but they're limited as to what they can do. They're also hampered by some of the more disreputable "charities" out there, as well as unscrupulous individuals who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

quote:

As for what people can do on their own, I think it's been shown that people can and will do whatever they have to do to survive, depending on the options they have available. If people who are already half-desperate are pushed into a corner where their available options are even fewer, what do you think could result? What sort of options do you think they might take?

quote:

quote:

The job market may have changed. There may not be enough qualified talent in the local applicant pool for those jobs. I don't support employers hiring illegals. I believe we need to ratchet up the penalties as part of overall immigration reform.

Yes, we both agree on that point. However, when we're talking about jobs at the lower end of the pay scale, it's difficult to consider how there could not be enough qualified talent. However, even at the higher levels, the job market is also highly specialized and compartmentalized, and companies might be very exacting and specific as to what they consider "qualified," thus fulfilling their own prophecy that they can't find enough qualified people.

quote:

quote:

The analysis of who is shitty and who is not is subjective, so what employer is going to go ahead and claim they are shitty? Information about an employer can be found. Ask around. You'll find someone who knows someone and you'll eventually find out about an employer. This ain't rocket surgery, Zonie.

All I'm saying is that there should be truth in advertising. I know that employers would be reluctant to admit that they're shitty, but at least it would be a refreshing change from the usual brochures and pictures of smiling happy employees you might see in commercials and in HR departments.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

What do we do with all those workers who aren't required for other jobs? Gee, I don't know, maybe they could create a different job? A line operator may have been displaced by a robot, but that doesn't mean he or she can't swing a hammer and be a carpenter, does it?

Well, they could eventually create robots to do those jobs as well.

But, until they do...

And when they do, we'll be back to square one of having more people than there are available jobs.

quote:

quote:

There is always work to do. Always.

Well, sure there's lots of things that likely need to be done for the future survival of humanity, although that would require a shifting of priorities at a societal level. Other than that, I'm not sure how your statement that "there is always work to do" substantially answers what I was saying.

quote:

quote:

And, it's up to States to stand up for their rights against the over-stepping of the Constitution by the Federal government. It can happen.

Each State sends two Senators to the Federal government and a number of Representatives based on their population, with State legislatures having the authority to draw where the district lines are located. Each State has a certain number of electoral votes at each Presidential election, giving each State a proportionate level of say in who the top Executive for the country should be. Then, of course, the Senate has the authority to confirm Presidential appointees, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, as well as the power to ratify (or not ratify) any treaties.
When you put it into perspective, if the Federal government is overstepping the Constitution, then perhaps States might consider their own complicity in that process before presuming to stand up for their rights and acting like an oppressed victim. With all that power and authority they have to control the Federal government and keep it in check, they still can't seem to stand up for their rights all that effectively.

quote:

I think the real problem is not so much due to the Federal government overstepping the Constitution (which I wouldn't deny), but the source of that could be that the major political parties are, in fact, national institutions with a centralized authority. That phenomenon undoubtedly hurts States' Rights more than the Federal government can do by itself.

quote:

quote:

Who says it's a paragon of virtue?!? Certainly, the people in Ferguson, Cleveland, and NY don't think law enforcement is a paragon of virtue.

No, but a lot of conservatives from outside of those areas have expressed a different viewpoint on the matter.

quote:

Anyone who follows any top stories knows our military has it's own dirty laundry. But, there is a difference between the Federal government having programs for the military to defend our Nation, and the Federal government having programs redistributing money within our borders. One's in the Constitution...

While it may be a matter of interpretation, I think the power to raise armies and navies is tied in with the power to declare war. Without an actual declared war currently in effect, the idea of having a large, permanent military complex seems antithetical to the Founding Fathers' intentions. Their frugality was not just limited to social programs or welfare. Even conservatives once considered that having a large permanent military was fiscally irresponsible and not a proper usage of public money. That's why the US military was relatively small at the outbreak of WW2.
But many argued that those attitudes had to change because the world around us was changing, especially since military technology had advanced to the point where we wouldn't have enough time to build up an army or navy if we needed it in a crisis situation. The prevailing wisdom was that we needed to have a permanent, well-trained, well-equipped force with modern weapons ready to go at a moment's notice, if ever the need would arise. There was a need to be prepared.
But by the same token, our defense and security also rested upon maintaining stability and order within the country as well, and that may be where some of the justifications for wealth redistribution come from, even if it might not have been directly addressed in the Constitution.

quote:

quote:

The analysis of why there is a slow and steady deterioration, isn't so cut and dried, either, Zonie. That's part of the problem.

No it isn't cut and dried. You're absolutely right about that, which is why I tend to reject any "systemic" explanations for why a country succeeds or fails.
In fact, that may be a contributing factor in the slow and steady deterioration. I don't think it's necessarily the fault of the "system" as such. There are some flaws in the system, but the problem at hand seems to be that there are so many zealous, stalwart believers in the "system" as the be-all and end-all of our existence that they can't possibly accept that there might be some need for improvement. It's just foolish pride that we'd rather go down the drain than admit to a mistake. Not that I'm a big on biblical admonitions, but it does seem appropriate to mention that "pride goeth before a fall."
It also seems evident that whenever even the slightest criticisms of the system come about, the same true believers get quite defensive, usually resorting to the "love-it-or-leave-it" card or coming up with rather absurd comparisons about how much better we are than Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany once was, as if that's the standard by which we should judge ourselves. Just because other countries have low standards for government doesn't mean that we shouldn't set a higher standard for ourselves.

quote:

quote:

Why is it a monopoly? Is it a government sanctioned monopoly? If so, might that not be an area where government steps back and allows competition to flourish? Is it a monopoly, or a near monopoly because government regulation is hindering competition?

From what I'm able to gather, it's rather complicated, although some might blame deregulation and some of the big mergers and buyouts in the airline industry in leading to the situation we have today.
It should be noted that one site which rates the quality and safety of airlines gave its top award to Air New Zealand, which is government owned.

quote:

quote:

We continue to be such oppressors, don't we? [8|]

I don't think we can put it such a neatly-wrapped package like that, as it's a little more complicated than that; although I don't think it's something we should take lightly either.

quote:

quote:

They do give something back. That's just it. They are paying taxes; lots of taxes. The highest tax brackets are shouldering the greatest share of the Federal Income tax burden. People who have earned billions pay more than those who earn millions, thousands, etc.

One of the points raised in this thread is that they're sending money to offshore accounts just so they can avoid paying taxes on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
The major conflict with the money angle is that in the modern world money is speech (or freedom of speech) due to the influence of mass media

Politicians deciding who may get what messages out when can be problematic, for obvious reasons

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Accusation of mischief is enough "proof" of mischief and need for regulation to some. That's a problem. There is a need for regulations, I don't disagree. But, there is a point where more isn't necessarily better.

quote:

quote:

And why would business be so quick to blame government for regulations when they should be blaming the bad apples in their own industry who caused it to happen in the first place? At least if business were willing to admit their own part in bringing government regulations upon themselves, they might have a bit more integrity.

They do.

quote:


Government admits it did wrong, and then adds another layer of bureaucracy to "fix" the error they made. End result is even more regulation.

quote:


Conservatives aren't totally dissatisfied with the SCOTUS's rulings. But, imo, a bad ruling for the right and a bad ruling for the left doesn't really make things right. Another problem we do have in the US is the multiple interpretations of the US Constitution. Twenty years from now, the SCOTUS might think differently than it does today, even if there aren't any ratified amendments between now and then.

quote:


All I have to do is say something twice and I'm fond of saying it?!? Damn! [8D]

quote:


How about we let the severity of the sentence fit the severity of the crime? I'm not opposed to keeping GITMO-level punishments being an option when the severity of the crime is that high. I mean, when a company is selling investors a product, but it actively hedging against that product, that's some serious shit, and there should be serious repercussions.

quote:


That depends on how "far enough" is defined. Competitors will shine a light on their foes flaws to gain market share. That's the way it goes.

quote:


That was something that drew people, but I know it there was a lot more than that, too. I didn't mean to infer that that was the only reason for the OWS protests. There were many OWS protesters that were out, actively protesting and whining because they couldn't find a job that they studied for. Rather than go and start their own business (make their own job), they whined and complained that Wall Street wasn't creating enough jobs, as if the role of Wall Street is to employ them.

quote:


They'll take whatever option they have. And, they'll have to deal with whatever consequences that result. Very few people have no options until backed into a corner. They pass on option after option, until they find themselves cornered. Who's fault is it they're cornered?

quote:


I wasn't just talking about low-skill jobs, and I didn't realize that was the topic. But, if an employer isn't offering a high enough wage to attract the employees' it's looking for, it either has to lower the expectations of the employee or offer a higher wage. If an employer can't do either of those, then it's time to wonder if it should remain in business at all.

quote:


There might be a difficult path to proving they weren't being truthful, though.

quote:


By that time, they'll be able to figure out how to do something else, then. No one is "owed" a job.

quote:


It's an extremely rare occurrence when someone has not marketable talents or ability to do work that someone isn't hiring for. There are some that have no capacity to support themselves. Those people would fall under the category of the "truly needy," imo.

quote:


Someone who can't find work isn't really trying, or isn't willing to accept work under certain conditions. I was that way for a bit. I would pass on an employment opportunity, or not even send in a resume because the pay wasn't high enough to cover the resulting childcare costs. There was work available, but I wouldn't accept it and make things worse. I admit I was lucky in that my ex wife had a very good job and supported the family. If push came to shove, I'd have been out there slugging out a living as best I could. There is work available, Zonie.

quote:


States no longer send any representatives. The people elect two senators. There is no body in Congress that is looking out for issues the State thinks important.

quote:


Our National Defense and National Security is about defending the Nation from other countries. The Federal government was not set up to be everything for every individual Citizen.

quote:


It wasn't set up to deal with matters smaller than issues between two or more States, and issues that are addressed for the nation as one unit.

quote:


We were wrong to overlord in the past. I have yet to see how we can change the past, so that's a moot point. Are we still doing it? I didn't think so.

quote:


Yet, they're still paying shit loads of taxes, aren't they? I don't know the answer to this question, but does interest on a savings account get taxed by the country the account is held in? Does interest earned from a "Swiss bank account" or a "Cayman Island bank account" get taxed by the Swiss or Cayman Island government (respectively)? If it is, then they might just be shielding their earnings from higher taxes. Isn't money earned in the US, taxed by the US? Even if that money is moved off-shore, it's still earned here, and will get taxed here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Accusation of mischief is enough "proof" of mischief and need for regulation to some. That's a problem. There is a need for regulations, I don't disagree. But, there is a point where more isn't necessarily better.

I wouldn't say that an accusation of mischief constitutes proof of mischief. How do you figure that? Usually, the need for regulation comes up after some level of damage has been done due to some incident or unfortunate event, and society's usual response is to explore ways to prevent such a thing from happening again.

quote:

quote:

quote:

And why would business be so quick to blame government for regulations when they should be blaming the bad apples in their own industry who caused it to happen in the first place? At least if business were willing to admit their own part in bringing government regulations upon themselves, they might have a bit more integrity.

They do.

Then why do they complain so much about it?

quote:

quote:

Government admits it did wrong, and then adds another layer of bureaucracy to "fix" the error they made. End result is even more regulation.

Yes, to some extent, this is true. But that doesn't really address the point I was making.
Moreover, even within society and among the general public, criticizing politicians and bureaucrats as incompetent, corrupt, and buffoonish is Americans' favorite pastime - and few people become upset about it or play the "love-it-or-leave-it" card. It's only when people criticize the economic system or big business that all these pseudo-patriots come out of the woodwork and go on the attack against anyone who dares to criticize their holy ideology.

quote:

quote:

Conservatives aren't totally dissatisfied with the SCOTUS's rulings. But, imo, a bad ruling for the right and a bad ruling for the left doesn't really make things right. Another problem we do have in the US is the multiple interpretations of the US Constitution. Twenty years from now, the SCOTUS might think differently than it does today, even if there aren't any ratified amendments between now and then.

Whether it's a bad ruling or a good ruling is difficult for me to consider. I don't pretend to be an expert in Constitutional law, although I do realize that there are multiple interpretations of the Constitution and that the character and opinion of the Court changes as the judges change, along with the politicians and the opinions and attitudes of the general public, which also change.

quote:

quote:

All I have to do is say something twice and I'm fond of saying it?!? Damn! [8D]

Well, it wasn't really that big of a deal anyway. Okay, so you're not fond of saying it, but it wouldn't matter even if you were.

quote:

quote:

How about we let the severity of the sentence fit the severity of the crime? I'm not opposed to keeping GITMO-level punishments being an option when the severity of the crime is that high. I mean, when a company is selling investors a product, but it actively hedging against that product, that's some serious shit, and there should be serious repercussions.

It depends on how one might define the level of severity. I've come across some people who seem to believe that some levels of corruption are acceptable and that it's sometimes viewed as the "grease that keeps the wheels moving." This creates an impression that the crime itself is really not all that "severe."

quote:

quote:

That depends on how "far enough" is defined. Competitors will shine a light on their foes flaws to gain market share. That's the way it goes.

I'm not really talking about competitors within the same industry, but among most pro-capitalist ideologues I've encountered, there seems to be more of a "ni modo" attitude about the flaws and downsides of the ideological system they support. It's like they're saying "Yeah, some things are bad, but there's nothing we can do about it, so might as well just go and make some money and enjoy it." Back during the Reagan-Bush era, it was "Don't Worry, Be Happy." Perhaps if we had been a bit more worried back then, society might have taken action so that there'd be less worry today.

quote:

quote:

That was something that drew people, but I know it there was a lot more than that, too. I didn't mean to infer that that was the only reason for the OWS protests. There were many OWS protesters that were out, actively protesting and whining because they couldn't find a job that they studied for. Rather than go and start their own business (make their own job), they whined and complained that Wall Street wasn't creating enough jobs, as if the role of Wall Street is to employ them.

It seems that they were blaming the financial/business community for the sorry state of affairs the economy was in, which had an effect on the availability of jobs. It's not that the role of Wall Street is to employ them, although they might center on Wall Street as a kind of symbolic centralized "capital" of finance and industry.

quote:

quote:

They'll take whatever option they have. And, they'll have to deal with whatever consequences that result. Very few people have no options until backed into a corner. They pass on option after option, until they find themselves cornered. Who's fault is it they're cornered?

It's not a question of whose fault it is. Sure, it's their fault for being cornered, but when they take their options, sometimes the consequences fall on others who might just be innocent bystanders. As a result, we'll need more and more police, along more judges and more prison space, to deal with more people making bad choices - or we, as a society, can try to think of other options. We all have to face the consequences of our own choices, even including the choices we collectively make, as a society.

quote:

quote:

I wasn't just talking about low-skill jobs, and I didn't realize that was the topic. But, if an employer isn't offering a high enough wage to attract the employees' it's looking for, it either has to lower the expectations of the employee or offer a higher wage. If an employer can't do either of those, then it's time to wonder if it should remain in business at all.

Yes. But if we're talking about high-wage jobs which require certain skill sets, then if the educational system can't produce them, then it's up to the employers themselves to train them. I was reading an article about a shortage of medical doctors in the coming years. They're talking about finding ways of fast-tracking medical schools so that it doesn't take so long to train doctors. Some might even question whether the traditional four-year college and the general structure of how education is approached these days is even relevant in this day and age.

quote:

quote:

There might be a difficult path to proving they weren't being truthful, though.

I suppose it would be difficult, but not impossible.

quote:

quote:

By that time, they'll be able to figure out how to do something else, then. No one is "owed" a job.

I never said that anyone was owed a job. All I'm really saying is that it's not in society's best interests to support or create a situation which has been known to lead to larger percentages of the population to become more idle, desperate, and disgruntled. Even if you're absolutely correct that "it's their fault" for being in that situation, that doesn't change anything, nor does it mitigate the consequences society as a whole will have to deal with.

quote:

quote:

It's an extremely rare occurrence when someone has not marketable talents or ability to do work that someone isn't hiring for. There are some that have no capacity to support themselves. Those people would fall under the category of the "truly needy," imo.

There's also the other question of whether the system will be able to continue to support the "truly needy," however you might define it. Budgets are tight these days.

quote:

quote:

Someone who can't find work isn't really trying, or isn't willing to accept work under certain conditions. I was that way for a bit. I would pass on an employment opportunity, or not even send in a resume because the pay wasn't high enough to cover the resulting childcare costs. There was work available, but I wouldn't accept it and make things worse. I admit I was lucky in that my ex wife had a very good job and supported the family. If push came to shove, I'd have been out there slugging out a living as best I could. There is work available, Zonie.

That wasn't really what I was getting at. You're looking at how things were in the past, in your lifetime, but we also have to look at the direction we're headed and what it could mean for the future. I just don't have a great deal of confidence in the view that we should just let the "market" figure it all out by itself with only the Constitution as our guide.

quote:

quote:

States no longer send any representatives. The people elect two senators. There is no body in Congress that is looking out for issues the State thinks important.

The people living in the States elect the two senators, just as they elect their Governor, along with their legislative representatives in their respective districts. As for whatever issues the State or its people think to be important, it stands to reason that the electorate would choose their officials and representatives based on what they deem to be important.
For example, Arizona's two Senators are both members of the same political party as the Governor, and they're all aware of the main issues significant to the State of Arizona. I think it's safe to say that our Senators are on the job of representing the State, as in the State government and its vested interests, if that's what you mean. Whether or not they actually represent the people is another matter entirely.
I think it's the same with the Federal government too, but the idea of States having to stand up for their rights against an oppressive Federal government always gets a bit too overblown. It's the people who need to have rights, not the "States."

quote:

quote:

Our National Defense and National Security is about defending the Nation from other countries. The Federal government was not set up to be everything for every individual Citizen.

Nor was it really set up to be the world's policeman either.

quote:

quote:

It wasn't set up to deal with matters smaller than issues between two or more States, and issues that are addressed for the nation as one unit.

Whatever it was or was not "set up to deal with," a lot of that changed later on as a result of the Civil War.

quote:

quote:

We were wrong to overlord in the past. I have yet to see how we can change the past, so that's a moot point. Are we still doing it? I didn't think so.

One might say we're still doing it today, even if it may be taking a different form than from the past. But what brought us to this point was your statement about South America, which seemed to be a reference to their standard of living being lower than ours. You seem be suggesting that such situations "just happen" due to hard work and dedication to capitalism, while those who are worse off just because they don't work as hard, maybe they're lazy or whatever. I'm only saying that there may be other reasons for such a disparity, not suggesting that we can change the past or even that we should pay reparations or feel guilt about it.
But it did happen, and if one wants to give an honest assessment of how things happen in this world and why a few people end up with an excessive amount of wealth while most others struggle to get by (which seems to be the main topic of this thread), then such things have to be mentioned. You want to make it seem like it's all due to "hard work," with these happy, smiling, friendly people in some mythical "marketplace" with happy employees. I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of reality.

quote:

quote:

Yet, they're still paying shit loads of taxes, aren't they? I don't know the answer to this question, but does interest on a savings account get taxed by the country the account is held in? Does interest earned from a "Swiss bank account" or a "Cayman Island bank account" get taxed by the Swiss or Cayman Island government (respectively)? If it is, then they might just be shielding their earnings from higher taxes. Isn't money earned in the US, taxed by the US? Even if that money is moved off-shore, it's still earned here, and will get taxed here.

That is, if it's reported and the government knows about it. I think the main attraction of those offshore places, other than the low taxes, is that account holders can enjoy anonymity, free of the US government's prying eyes. So, if the government doesn't actually know how much a person is earning, then they can't tax them on it. Sure, some get caught for tax evasion, but then that brings us back to the question of the severity of the crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Some of the biggest tax hikes in the budget also include a 14 percent, one-time tax on previously untaxed foreign income (raising $268.1 billion); a 19 percent minimum tax on foreign income (raising $206 billion); and a fraction-of-a-percent fee on the 100 financial firms with assets of over $50 billion (raising $111.8 billion).
The budget plan, while gearing tax hikes toward the wealthy and tax benefits toward the middle class, wouldn't exclusively hit the top tier. It would also hit smokers of all kinds, who under the president's plan would see the per-pack tax rise from $1.01 to $1.95, bringing in an additional $95 billion in revenue.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/02/obama-budget-includes-2t-in-tax-hikes/
Regarding the budget that the Pres has put forward....:)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It would also hit smokers of all kinds, who under the president's plan would see the per-pack tax rise from $1.01 to $1.95