quote:

Big companies, while generally supportive of a tax-code revamp, are likely to view the proposed rates as too high. GOP reaction suggested that Republicans may see Mr. Obama’s latest proposal as an effort to widen the corporate-tax base without doing enough to bring down rates.

quote:

Still, unlike other budget proposals already put forward by the president, such as free community college, infrastructure is one of the few corners of the federal budget, along with military spending, where Republicans have signaled agreement with Mr. Obama and some other Democrats.

“I can’t think of a better place to invest right now than in infrastructure. It’s a desperate need we have,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.), a member of the House Budget Committee.

But with billions of dollars at stake, businesses are likely to resist bigger tax bills. General Electric Co. reported $110 billion in undistributed overseas earnings in 2013, while the figure for Apple Inc. was $54.4 billion.

Ronald DeFeo, chairman and chief executive of Terex Corp., said Mr. Obama’s plan to finance infrastructure partly by taxing U.S. companies’ foreign earnings sounds like “good politics and poor public policy.’’

The maker of construction equipment derived more than 60% of its 2014 sales outside the U.S., Mr. DeFeo said. “Give us a globally competitive tax system. This [proposal] is not that,” he said.

The National Association of Manufacturers, in a statement, said that “while the NAM recognizes the need to fund our infrastructure, piecemeal changes to the tax code that increase taxes for U.S. global companies is not the way to do it.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

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

Again? Good news for the bootleggers, I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
but cutting programs for the poor is fine ....
btw, I know this is just budget that hasnt been passed yet, but it DOES relate to the topic
585 billion in a tax raise is a lot of new infrastucture jobs & profits.
IM sorry I dont give a damn about those companies maintaining that profit and not getting taxed on it.
BTW< I pay tax on foreign income
But at least its in country, not hidden away

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Perhaps its because the "bad apples" that regulations are designed to affect, have a negative effect on all the "apples," not just the bad ones?

quote:


Yet, my point is definitely true.

quote:


Therein lies a huge problem. When you have a document that is supposed to set the framework of our national government, it shouldn't be so easily changed or reinterpreted.

quote:


We, as a society, need to make that determination.

quote:


That attitude pervades our society, in general. Remember when someone said something to the effect that they shouldn't miss the opportunity to take advantage of every bad situation (holy shit, I butchered that!)?

quote:


Ha Ha! Yeah, they were pissed about the financial state of affairs. [8|]

They didn't give a rat's ass about the financial state of affairs any further than their own joblessness.

quote:


Yet, we're talking about people who aren't making good choices, who get cornered (mostly because of those bad choices), and not holding them accountable for their bad choices. I'm not talking about someone who made a bad investment and fell on hard times. I'm talking about those whose bad choices are their way of life. They consistently make poor decisions, and not because they don't know better.

quote:


That might have something to do with the AMA, too. There's a government sanctioned monopoly that is having a negative impact on the affordability of health care.

quote:


Very few jobs don't require some sort of on the job training by the employer. But, when you can't find someone who has the background skills to understand the basics, then what are you going to do? A degree can't really train you for a specific job at a specific employer, but it can give you the understanding and knowledge you'll need to be competent at the job until you have a firm grasp of the job's particulars.

quote:


Post#202: You: "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?"

Apparently, we have to figure out what to do with all those extra workers. Why, if we don't owe them a job?

quote:


There are many reasons for that, and government has much to do with it.

quote:


Who is "the market," in your opinion?

quote:


The idea of the Senate was so that each State government would appoint 2 representatives to represent the State governments. Having a popular vote of the State Citizens certainly isn't the same thing.

quote:


Completely agree. I'm all for bringing our troops back from our foreign bases and reducing our role as World Police.

quote:


Very true, but, that was still a State-level issue at the very least.

quote:


You're saying that the US has been blessed with great natural resources (which I wholeheartedly agree with) because of our location (latitude, oceans on either side), and I brought up South America having Southern latitude the same as our Northern latitude, and also being sided by oceans). That those countries aren't as wealthy as the US has to do with other natural resources, but it could also have something to do with their government and economic systems, no?

quote:


If I'm gaining interest on a bank account in Canada, why does the US government have any right to tax that interest?

quote:


It's one thing to have the host country tax it (the US certainly does have tax laws about account interest), but a foreign country tax it?

quote:


Profits made in the US are taxed in the US. Why should the US be allowed to tax profits made outside the US?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

Therein lies a huge problem. When you have a document that is supposed to set the framework of our national government, it shouldn't be so easily changed or reinterpreted.

It isn't really all that easy, though.

quote:

quote:

We, as a society, need to make that determination.

I would say that society's best interests are served by imposing harsher punishments on con men and other business criminals.

quote:

quote:

That attitude pervades our society, in general. Remember when someone said something to the effect that they shouldn't miss the opportunity to take advantage of every bad situation (holy shit, I butchered that!)?

Then that may be something that needs to change in our society, or else we'll have to face the consequences for doing so. That's one thing I've noticed about conservatives and their general line of thinking: They seem to subscribe to the idea that people should take responsibility and the consequences of their own actions, but they're extremely selective and one-sided in their application of this particular philosophy.

quote:

quote:

Ha Ha! Yeah, they were pissed about the financial state of affairs. [8|]
They didn't give a rat's ass about the financial state of affairs any further than their own joblessness.

That's very often the case with any complaint or act of protest. It's the same way with pro-business conservatives. They give dire warnings such as "higher taxes on the wealthy will damage the economy," but these people honestly don't give two shits about the economy as a whole. All they care about is that their profits will be smaller (but they'll still have plenty to live on, so what are they worried about). Their criticisms of government regulation and/or socialism (however they choose to define it) are equally disingenuous. They don't care about this country, nor do they care about the well-being of its people, as they demonstrate nothing but scorn and derision towards the majority of Americans.
The conservatives say that "socialism will be bad for America," but that's what they say. And despite their facade of phony patriotism, "they" don't really care about America, so why should anyone take seriously what they say about what will be "bad for America"?

quote:

quote:

Yet, we're talking about people who aren't making good choices, who get cornered (mostly because of those bad choices), and not holding them accountable for their bad choices. I'm not talking about someone who made a bad investment and fell on hard times. I'm talking about those whose bad choices are their way of life. They consistently make poor decisions, and not because they don't know better.

But they generally are held accountable for their bad choices. Life itself has its own consequences, no matter if government intervenes or lets things go in laissez-faire style.
I would also point out that every individual life is unique, and as such, it needs to be evaluated and judged individually, not as a generalized group of people "who aren't making good choices" or "whose bad choices are their way of life." Unless we know the exact circumstances and conditions someone has faced in life and analyze them fairly and objectively, I don't see how it would be proper or appropriate to make the kind of blanket judgment you're making here.
But all of this is a digression from the point I was making. The bottom line is, no man is an island. No one in this society lives in an insulated, self-contained bubble. Our choices affect other people, which can also influence their choices and affect even more people. Parents also have an enormous role in influencing their children's choices later in life, and we might see differences between those raised in loving, nurturing environments versus those who were abused or neglected.

quote:

The values and influences of society at large can also affect the way a person sees himself and the world around him. Not to mention the fact that there are countless individuals in society who also actively choose to try to persuade, manipulate, influence, and even pressure people to make choices they wouldn't ordinarily make. If one's parents didn't give one enough accurate information about the world - or instill any kind of a backbone in their offspring (and the schools can't be expected to do that either), then they might very well make some very bad choices in life - which can impact on others and affect their choices and become a vicious cycle throughout society.
Humans are also emotional creatures, and very often, choices are based on what people feel - even if they may or may not "know any better." What they "know" becomes less important than what they "feel," and that in and of itself becomes a choice that many can be pressured into making.
I can see the point you're making, and perhaps there's a certain cold logic to the idea that if someone makes a choice, they should have to take the consequences of those choices (and they usually do, unless they're rich). But where your view falls short is that you don't seem to accept that the matter just doesn't end right then and there. All these bad choices have a ripple effect which can cause long-term damage to society.

quote:

quote:

That might have something to do with the AMA, too. There's a government sanctioned monopoly that is having a negative impact on the affordability of health care.

Yes, but even those in the AMA realize that they'll have to retire someday and that there is a need to attract younger people into their profession to replace them. But maybe this answers your point about all those OWS people who can't find jobs. Maybe they should have gone to medical school, as doctors are needed all over the world.

quote:

quote:

Very few jobs don't require some sort of on the job training by the employer. But, when you can't find someone who has the background skills to understand the basics, then what are you going to do? A degree can't really train you for a specific job at a specific employer, but it can give you the understanding and knowledge you'll need to be competent at the job until you have a firm grasp of the job's particulars.

Well, then, perhaps we as a society can push for and emphasize better education and competency so as to have a more updated skill set which is what employers seem to need more of these days. But employers weren't quite so heavily dependent upon the public education system to train their employees for them, so that's something that has definitely changed from the way they used to operate.
In the past, if some young man with little schooling wanted a job working on the railroad (just as one example), they'd probably start him off with someone more experienced to show him the ropes and how to do the job, and before long, he'd be up to speed and just as productive as the other workers. Other jobs might have required that someone go through an apprenticeship, depending on what it was - but they're still working at the job and producing some measure of value for the employer while they're being trained. But nowadays, employers rarely do that; they don't want to be troubled with it. It's a long-term investment that they don't want to make, which is certainly their choice to make. But the consequence of that choice is that they don't have a large enough pool of qualified applicants for a given job.

quote:

Post#202: You: "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?"
Apparently, we have to figure out what to do with all those extra workers. Why, if we don't owe them a job?

quote:

Setting aside whatever one might think about "bleeding heart liberals," I think we still have the practical questions to consider. If we wish to advocate and embark upon a dog-eat-dog, fuck-the-rest-of-the-world philosophy, then we have to presume that the other dog can bite back and the rest of the world might choose to fuck us back. It doesn't matter who "owes" what to whom. Humanity is far too volatile to bank our nation's future on myths and assumptions about capitalism or freedom (or the Founding Fathers for that matter).

quote:

quote:

There are many reasons for that, and government has much to do with it.

I'm not denying that, although the problem in the government is that there are competing factions each pulling the government in different directions. Of course, they'll sit down, negotiate, and compromise as politicians often do, but that usually ends up adding more pork to a given bill or proposal.
But then, by the time it gets to the bureaucrats (who all secretly view the politicians as complete idiots), they're going to interpret whatever program in their way and then blame the politicians because they didn't allocate enough money to carry out whatever directive the politicians charged them with. I often think about this whenever they have some large project which goes overbudget.

quote:

quote:

Who is "the market," in your opinion?

I think the market is more of an abstraction, much in the same way terms like "society" might be used. Strictly speaking, "the market" is everybody, but then if that's the case, why bother calling it a "market"? It's all of humanity, isn't it?

quote:

quote:


The idea of the Senate was so that each State government would appoint 2 representatives to represent the State governments. Having a popular vote of the State Citizens certainly isn't the same thing.

Well, it's pretty darn close. I don't see that it makes any appreciable difference in practice.

quote:

quote:

Completely agree. I'm all for bringing our troops back from our foreign bases and reducing our role as World Police.

Trouble is, this is tied in with the overall goal of making a global free-market economy which encourages outsourcing and offshoring and which has led us to the situation we're facing in the world. This country has been on a continuing quest to make the world safe for capitalism, and that's what motivates most of these activities.

quote:

quote:

Very true, but, that was still a State-level issue at the very least.

Yes, but it re-defined what the Federal government and Constitution were set up to do, which relates to the claim you were making in that regard.

quote:

quote:

You're saying that the US has been blessed with great natural resources (which I wholeheartedly agree with) because of our location (latitude, oceans on either side), and I brought up South America having Southern latitude the same as our Northern latitude, and also being sided by oceans). That those countries aren't as wealthy as the US has to do with other natural resources, but it could also have something to do with their government and economic systems, no?

Yes, but that's also related to our own government and economic system, as well as our actions and foreign policy in the region.
Just out of curiosity, how much do you actually know about their history, government, and economic systems? I'm not asking that to be provocative; I'm just curious.
The reason I ask is because I've encountered this method of argumentation in the past, by which many Americans (both conservative and liberal) crow about the US "system" being so much greater than that of other countries. The implication of such arguments is that the US is great not because of the people or anything we actually did, but just because of a theoretical abstract "system," which can supposedly be applied to any country, any group of people, and/or any situation and will achieve the same spectacular results under any conditions.
During the Cold War, it was common to compare the United States to the former Soviet Union, although most of the time, such comparisons were made by people who had no clue about Russia, their history or political system.

quote:

quote:

If I'm gaining interest on a bank account in Canada, why does the US government have any right to tax that interest?

Because you're still gaining benefit by living in the United States and holding US citizenship. Just as conservatives always use the "love-it-or-leave-it" argument, I think it could just as easily apply in these situations, too.

quote:

quote:

It's one thing to have the host country tax it (the US certainly does have tax laws about account interest), but a foreign country tax it?

The US is not a "foreign country" to an American citizen.

quote:

quote:

Profits made in the US are taxed in the US. Why should the US be allowed to tax profits made outside the US?

Well, no one is forcing anyone to remain a US citizen. If someone wishes to avoid the US taxing their profits made outside the US, then they can always renounce their citizenship and leave the country.

quote:


Consumers make up the market. By letting "the market" decide, consumers are deciding. If a business has an unpopular product, shouldn't the market decide and either the business goes bust or improves the product?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
but cutting programs for the poor is fine ....
btw, I know this is just budget that hasnt been passed yet, but it DOES relate to the topic
585 billion in a tax raise is a lot of new infrastucture jobs & profits.
IM sorry I dont give a damn about those companies maintaining that profit and not getting taxed on it.
BTW< I pay tax on foreign income
But at least its in country, not hidden away

That does't answer the question. Those companies are still paying taxes on those profits, Lucy. They just aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made outside the US.

What right does the US Government have to any of the profits a company makes outside the US?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
but cutting programs for the poor is fine ....
btw, I know this is just budget that hasnt been passed yet, but it DOES relate to the topic
585 billion in a tax raise is a lot of new infrastucture jobs & profits.
IM sorry I dont give a damn about those companies maintaining that profit and not getting taxed on it.
BTW< I pay tax on foreign income
But at least its in country, not hidden away

That does't answer the question. Those companies are still paying taxes on those profits, Lucy. They just aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made outside the US.
What right does the US Government have to any of the profits a company makes outside the US?

It could be argued that these companies are in existence due to US resources and the opportunity to do business in the US, and it follows they should be subject to US tax laws.
As a liberal, my argument is that businesses should be taxed at source: do business in the UK and you are taxed only in the UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezigg

I bet if you look into it you would find that you have more wealth than half the world population combined. By you I mean anyone that is reading this post.

Ill take that bet. I could use some easy cash right about now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi].....and HERE[/link]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
but cutting programs for the poor is fine ....
btw, I know this is just budget that hasnt been passed yet, but it DOES relate to the topic
585 billion in a tax raise is a lot of new infrastucture jobs & profits.
IM sorry I dont give a damn about those companies maintaining that profit and not getting taxed on it.
BTW< I pay tax on foreign income
But at least its in country, not hidden away

That does't answer the question. Those companies are still paying taxes on those profits, Lucy. They just aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made outside the US.
What right does the US Government have to any of the profits a company makes outside the US?

It could be argued that these companies are in existence due to US resources and the opportunity to do business in the US, and it follows they should be subject to US tax laws.
As a liberal, my argument is that businesses should be taxed at source: do business in the UK and you are taxed only in the UK.

That would make you a "Classic Liberal" in the US, NG! lol

Is a US Company buys a company in Luxembourg, what right to the profits of that company in Luxembourg does the US government have?

I have no problem with a country taxing profits made within that country's borders. We agree on that. And, that's the way it is now. What the Democrats and President Obama want to do is tax profits made outside the US. The only way that gets taxed now, is if that money is brought back to the US. If it remains outside the US, it's not taxed. One situation, in particular, that irks them, is GE. They operated at a loss within the US, so they didn't have to pay as much in taxes (the claim is that GE got tax subsidies, but the reality is that the taxes paid to the Federal Government throughout the year ended up being greater than what was owed, so there was a refund), but outside the US, they had healthy profits. The profits outside the US were greater than the loss inside the US, so what sticks in their craw is that GE got a refund on taxes it had paid throughout the year because they operated at a loss on domestic business, but, overall, they were a profitable company.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
but cutting programs for the poor is fine ....
btw, I know this is just budget that hasnt been passed yet, but it DOES relate to the topic
585 billion in a tax raise is a lot of new infrastucture jobs & profits.
IM sorry I dont give a damn about those companies maintaining that profit and not getting taxed on it.
BTW< I pay tax on foreign income
But at least its in country, not hidden away

That does't answer the question. Those companies are still paying taxes on those profits, Lucy. They just aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made outside the US.
What right does the US Government have to any of the profits a company makes outside the US?

It could be argued that these companies are in existence due to US resources and the opportunity to do business in the US, and it follows they should be subject to US tax laws.
As a liberal, my argument is that businesses should be taxed at source: do business in the UK and you are taxed only in the UK.

That would make you a "Classic Liberal" in the US, NG! lol
Is a US Company buys a company in Luxembourg, what right to the profits of that company in Luxembourg does the US government have?
I have no problem with a country taxing profits made within that country's borders. We agree on that. And, that's the way it is now. What the Democrats and President Obama want to do is tax profits made outside the US. The only way that gets taxed now, is if that money is brought back to the US. If it remains outside the US, it's not taxed. One situation, in particular, that irks them, is GE. They operated at a loss within the US, so they didn't have to pay as much in taxes (the claim is that GE got tax subsidies, but the reality is that the taxes paid to the Federal Government throughout the year ended up being greater than what was owed, so there was a refund), but outside the US, they had healthy profits. The profits outside the US were greater than the loss inside the US, so what sticks in their craw is that GE got a refund on taxes it had paid throughout the year because they operated at a loss on domestic business, but, overall, they were a profitable company.

But as I've written before, they aren't profits made 'outside' of the US, 80-90% were made right here. For only one example, Apple designs and tests products here, make some parts here, get most parts overseas, have many parts made in and assemble the whole in China and SELL the products mostly (90%) in the US and western industrialized countries and simply records the profits in Ireland. Then ALL of those profits remain...un-taxed by the US and...offshore.
It is getting so bad that stockholders were going to dump (major fund investors) the stock if they didn't start to pay some dividend. No problem, they borrowed the money to pay dividends.
Stockholders take in the millions and pay 15% federal tax. Isn't that precious ? Bill Gates for example needs that tax incentive of a 15% federal tax on the $300-$400 million PER YEAR in dividends he receives. It's a tough job but somebody's' got to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
So basically modern day companies have to be taxed in the modern day sense. Yesteryear taxes policies and viewpoints do not work. To easy to side-step and avoid in any number of ways. Now its time to get crafty. Make it hard on the multi-national corporation from skitting taxes in the USA, while making profits....
When you get paid for a job, money has been placed in your bank account, right? From there you can choose how it is used, right? Pay bills, buy that new piece of electronics you wanted, vacation, etc. Even before your taxed later in the following year, this money is directed from 'income' to 'bills', 'electronics', 'vacation', etc. Yet, the money did exist in the USA, in your bank account, right?
This will blow your doors off....
You'll either 'get it', or not.....
A corporation makes money (profit) in country 'X'. The information is relayed to managers/accountants in the USA. The expenses are minus out and the net profit realized. That profit goes towards something else in country 'Y', that the company also operates in. However, between 'X' and 'Y', the money was in the USA. Even though it was not....physically....in the form of greenbacks, it was still in the USA....physically. An therefore, should be taxed.
How?
Which is heavier? The Internet? Or a regular sized strawberry?
All that information does have a weight to it. Granted the weight is so tiny none of us would feel the difference. None the less, that information occupies a set of systems within the company that operates within the USA. So if its money being generated, that would be....income....to the company, and hence, taxed correctly. Even though it was electronically 'here', there is a physical 'ticket' of its presence. Therefore, it can and should be taxed.
Now companies, would simply make it policy not to 'air' such information on American systems openly. What if other nations followed suit? Imagine the amount of tax money just waiting ot be tapped....
But, even though its an unusual idea, it'll never work. Since the 1% calls the Republican/Tea Party their bitches for the USA. I'm sure the rich have other 'pets' in other industrialized nations to keep something like this from happening....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

Therein lies a huge problem. When you have a document that is supposed to set the framework of our national government, it shouldn't be so easily changed or reinterpreted.

It isn't really all that easy, though.

Why isn't it?

quote:

quote:


Then that may be something that needs to change in our society, or else we'll have to face the consequences for doing so. That's one thing I've noticed about conservatives and their general line of thinking: They seem to subscribe to the idea that people should take responsibility and the consequences of their own actions, but they're extremely selective and one-sided in their application of this particular philosophy.

How do you figure that?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Ha Ha! Yeah, they were pissed about the financial state of affairs. [8|]
They didn't give a rat's ass about the financial state of affairs any further than their own joblessness.

That's very often the case with any complaint or act of protest. It's the same way with pro-business conservatives. They give dire warnings such as "higher taxes on the wealthy will damage the economy," but these people honestly don't give two shits about the economy as a whole. All they care about is that their profits will be smaller (but they'll still have plenty to live on, so what are they worried about). Their criticisms of government regulation and/or socialism (however they choose to define it) are equally disingenuous. They don't care about this country, nor do they care about the well-being of its people, as they demonstrate nothing but scorn and derision towards the majority of Americans.
The conservatives say that "socialism will be bad for America," but that's what they say. And despite their facade of phony patriotism, "they" don't really care about America, so why should anyone take seriously what they say about what will be "bad for America"?

Proof they don't care about America?

quote:

quote:


Parents also have an enormous role in influencing their children's choices later in life, and we might see differences between those raised in loving, nurturing environments versus those who were abused or neglected.

Absolutely agree with the bolded section. I'm at a loss for finding a way to hold parents accountable, though. Just think how much less schools would cost, and how much better we'd be, academically, if we could hold parents accountable for the academic environment they provide their children. It would be amazing.

quote:


How do we stop the bad choices? Do we submit to government and give up our liberty to choose our own paths?

quote:



The AMA has incentive to keep the number of doctors artificially low. It increases the demand and wages for doctors. That doesn't change as people retire. But, that's what you get when you have one sanctioned organization that can tell you who a doctor is, and there are laws that limit who can practice medicine. Add in insurance that won't likely pay for alternative medical care, and that simply adds more cost to patients.

quote:


There are still plenty of good paying jobs that don't require anything more than a HS diploma/GED, and a reliable way to get to work. There are apprenticeship programs out there, too. Most of my everyday work demands things that I didn't get from school, though school provided the basis for my understanding the on-the-job training. I agree that it's getting much more difficult to find people who don't have formal (outside the employer) training for the position they hold. But, much of that is due to the advances we've gone through.

quote:


"a situation society will ultimately have to deal with"

So, we either owe them a job, or owe them a living?

quote:


The difference between "bleeding heart liberals" and conservatives, isn't in the overall goals. It's in how to get there. Conservatives tend to want to empower the people to be responsible for themselves, while liberals tend to want government to provide.

quote:


And, we, as a society, shouldn't allow politicians to continue to add pork to bills. There's a flaw in our voting standards. We, as a nation, don't really have much of a problem with our elected officials continually adding pork to bills. We elect them because they talk the talk, but we keep electing them even though they don't walk the walk.

quote:


Consumers make up the market. By letting "the market" decide, consumers are deciding. If a business has an unpopular product, shouldn't the market decide and either the business goes bust or improves the product?

quote:

quote:

quote:


The idea of the Senate was so that each State government would appoint 2 representatives to represent the State governments. Having a popular vote of the State Citizens certainly isn't the same thing.

Well, it's pretty darn close. I don't see that it makes any appreciable difference in practice.

Then why was there any need to change it?

quote:


Outsourcing and offshoring aren't necessarily a bad thing, though. Japanese goods used to cost a lot less and were at least as good a quality as American goods. That spurred American companies to improve their own goods and to find other ways to reduce costs so they could compete. "Foreign" vehicles still cost a little bit more now than American vehicles, but that used to be because of the vehicles being of better quality. Though the increased price is still there, the quality difference isn't (though the perception still may remain). Why? Because American companies improved their products.

People every day choose to buy cheap crap from overseas. Why? Why does business not have a responsibility to provide what the market wants?

quote:


No, it didn't. The issue was still about one group of States and another group of States. The only thing that changed was the Federal government exerted itself and prevented one group from leaving the Union. That is, it was an issue "among the several States."

quote:


I'm not an expert by any means.

I fully believe that the system is the best and any country can be successful by being more capitalistic.

quote:


But, I do believe the level of success we've achieved in the US is also due to the location, geography, natural resources, etc. I don't know that American entrepreneurs are any different from entrepreneurs in other countries, but I do think that our system allows them to achieve more. It's not just the system, imo.

quote:


But, the interest has nothing to do with the US. All my profits and earnings within the US are still being taxed. If a company in the US bought a company wholly located in Luxembourg, why would the US government have any right to the profits realized by the company in Luxembourg?

quote:


Does that mean that the Canadian government shouldn't have any right to tax accounts in Canadian banks held by Americans?

quote:


Or, should the US Government not have any right to tax profits from accounts held in the US by non-US Citizens?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Profits made in the US are taxed in the US. Why should the US be allowed to tax profits made outside the US?

Well, no one is forcing anyone to remain a US citizen. If someone wishes to avoid the US taxing their profits made outside the US, then they can always renounce their citizenship and leave the country.

And, they'll still have to pay US taxes for a while.

Isn't that what businesses do in an inversion (which is being fought against by Government)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

Therein lies a huge problem. When you have a document that is supposed to set the framework of our national government, it shouldn't be so easily changed or reinterpreted.

It isn't really all that easy, though.

Why isn't it?

Because it was designed not to be easily changed. Sure, times change over many years and generations, which would lead to political changes which would affect how the Constitution is interpreted. But that process itself takes longer and is more difficult than actually amending the Constitution, yet you seem to think that even that is too easy. I don't agree.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Then that may be something that needs to change in our society, or else we'll have to face the consequences for doing so. That's one thing I've noticed about conservatives and their general line of thinking: They seem to subscribe to the idea that people should take responsibility and the consequences of their own actions, but they're extremely selective and one-sided in their application of this particular philosophy.

How do you figure that?

Because they seem to have a problem with understanding basic cause-and-effect. They seem to be willfully ignorant of what happens when the disparity between rich and poor becomes too much for a society to bear. If a rich or powerful person or entity abuses his/her position and mistreats his/her employees or customers, then many (if not most) conservatives seem oblivious to the notion that there might be some sort of backlash over their actions.
To illustrate one such example, even up to the very end, the Romanovs still had not the slightest clue as to why their own people turned against them and overthrew their 300-year dynasty. They refused to accept that it might have been their own actions which caused the events to happen. They just assumed that it was due to agitators and "lazy bums" (somewhat similar to the conservative attitudes shown in this thread) without entertaining even the slightest possibility that maybe the lower classes had good reason to be upset.
I see similar attitudes among conservatives here in the U.S. They seem to believe that the reasons for such huge disparities in this world is that the wealthy have some sort of ill-defined "superiority" over the remainder of the population - because (in their view) everyone is "free" and has an "equal chance to succeed," so anyone who fails must therefore be "inferior." If anyone complains about the situation, then they must be "whiners," "agitators," "communists," "terrorists," etc.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Ha Ha! Yeah, they were pissed about the financial state of affairs. [8|]
They didn't give a rat's ass about the financial state of affairs any further than their own joblessness.

That's very often the case with any complaint or act of protest. It's the same way with pro-business conservatives. They give dire warnings such as "higher taxes on the wealthy will damage the economy," but these people honestly don't give two shits about the economy as a whole. All they care about is that their profits will be smaller (but they'll still have plenty to live on, so what are they worried about). Their criticisms of government regulation and/or socialism (however they choose to define it) are equally disingenuous. They don't care about this country, nor do they care about the well-being of its people, as they demonstrate nothing but scorn and derision towards the majority of Americans.
The conservatives say that "socialism will be bad for America," but that's what they say. And despite their facade of phony patriotism, "they" don't really care about America, so why should anyone take seriously what they say about what will be "bad for America"?

Proof they don't care about America?

The fact that they outsource and offshore should be enough proof. I've heard Donald Trump say that the wealthy may leave America entirely if they don't get their way in terms of taxes and other economic policies. Talk about a fair weather friend. No sense of patriotism or loyalty to the nation.
Hell, even during WW2, FDR had to impose price controls simply because the capitalists refused to get it; they seemed oblivious to the fact that there was a war on, the nation was in crisis, and that sacrifices had to made.
It should be pretty obvious now, 30 years after Reagan, that all these policies related to deregulation, lowering of tariffs, and allowing the "free market" to run unimpeded and unfettered by government interference has brought us to the brink of disaster. And the people who brought us to this point are now saying that "socialism is bad"? Who are they to talk?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Parents also have an enormous role in influencing their children's choices later in life, and we might see differences between those raised in loving, nurturing environments versus those who were abused or neglected.

Absolutely agree with the bolded section. I'm at a loss for finding a way to hold parents accountable, though. Just think how much less schools would cost, and how much better we'd be, academically, if we could hold parents accountable for the academic environment they provide their children. It would be amazing.

It's a difficult question, and other than cases of outright proven abuse/neglect, the question of holding parents accountable might be seen as treading on personal family relationships which the government is not supposed to interfere in. Many conservatives might even consider it more sacred than capitalism or the free market.

quote:

Still, if someone ultimately makes questionable or poor choices as a result of a bad upbringing or environment - or perhaps some other life-changing event might have caused or led to some physical or mental impairment of some kind - even if it may not make them totally helpless or "truly needy" however one might define it.
That's why I have difficulty accepting the notion that the wealthy deserve it because they "worked their butts off" while the poor deserve their lot in life because they're a bunch of "lazy bums." That kind of religious-based homespun wisdom might have made sense in the 18th or 19th centuries, but not so much in this day and age.

quote:

quote:

How do we stop the bad choices? Do we submit to government and give up our liberty to choose our own paths?

No, I'm not saying that we should give up our liberty, nor do I think it's even possible to stop bad choices.
One thing we could do, as a society, is take a different approach to things and try to logically examine the chain of events which leads to a bad choice.
The problem is that we react too much and seem more inclined to revel in crisis and damage control rather than consider an ounce of prevention. We sit around and wait until there's a riot or a mass shooting or some other act of horrific violence, and then we send in teams of experts, psychiatrists, social workers to try to figure out what happened.
In terms of the level of attention and resources society places on things, it seems we'll bend over backwards to help and try to rehabilitate some violent criminal, as well as the enormous costs associated with law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and the corrections industry. But those who aren't violent or criminal, those who try to be decent honest citizens but just may need some help - they're given far less consideration and generally treated as bums and parasites.

quote:

quote:

The AMA has incentive to keep the number of doctors artificially low. It increases the demand and wages for doctors. That doesn't change as people retire. But, that's what you get when you have one sanctioned organization that can tell you who a doctor is, and there are laws that limit who can practice medicine. Add in insurance that won't likely pay for alternative medical care, and that simply adds more cost to patients.

It's a mess, no doubt about it. But it's another issue that will have to be determined on a societal level, not just by the AMA or the insurance companies.

quote:

quote:

quote:

There are still plenty of good paying jobs that don't require anything more than a HS diploma/GED, and a reliable way to get to work. There are apprenticeship programs out there, too. Most of my everyday work demands things that I didn't get from school, though school provided the basis for my understanding the on-the-job training. I agree that it's getting much more difficult to find people who don't have formal (outside the employer) training for the position they hold. But, much of that is due to the advances we've gone through.

True enough, which is all the more reason to question why any employers would complain that there aren't enough qualified applicants.

Let me rephrase that... it's becoming more common to find employees who have had formal (outside the employer) training for a position they are in. That means the next person to hold that job also has to have formal training. The days of not needing formal training are long gone for many types of work, especially if tech is involved. That's where the lack of qualified applicants can come in. You don't need a specialized degree or years of background training to learn how to weld, plumb, do carpentry, etc. All you need is to do it. The more you do it, the better you'll get at it. It's tough to "apprentice" at tech jobs because of all the background information that's needed to understand the specifics of the job.

quote:

quote:

"a situation society will ultimately have to deal with"
So, we either owe them a job, or owe them a living?

Not necessarily. Outlining a situation society will have to deal with does not automatically mean that society would "owe" anything.
If there was a hurricane coming, then that's a situation that society will have to deal with. Does that mean that we "owe" anything to the hurricane? Of course not.

We aren't talking about hurricanes, though, are we?

quote:

quote:

The difference between "bleeding heart liberals" and conservatives, isn't in the overall goals. It's in how to get there. Conservatives tend to want to empower the people to be responsible for themselves, while liberals tend to want government to provide.

It's not that simple. One difference I've noticed is more in emphasis. Liberals tend to emphasize individual civil rights for human beings, whereas conservatives tend to focus more on property rights or corporate rights or the rights of religious institutions, state governments, etc. more than the rights of individuals. Both factions ostensibly believe in government interference, even if they emphasize different areas where they think the government should interfere. Conservatives tend to believe the government should provide harsh enforcement of law and order at home and brazen militaristic interventionism abroad - just to protect wealthy interests.
That's another reason why the wealthy should have to pay most of the taxes, since they're the sole beneficiaries and the entire reason all this force and a military-industrial complex became necessary in the first place. They caused it and they're the only ones who benefit from it; therefore, they should have to pay for it.

I would agree that left-leaning people (stating it that way because outside the US, "liberal" doesn't have the same connotation; in fact, it's been "redefined" in the US from back in the day) tend to support more civil rights, and right-leaning tend to support more property rights. I know it's not exactly what you said, but that's why I didn't say I agree with exactly what you said.

quote:

quote:

And, we, as a society, shouldn't allow politicians to continue to add pork to bills. There's a flaw in our voting standards. We, as a nation, don't really have much of a problem with our elected officials continually adding pork to bills. We elect them because they talk the talk, but we keep electing them even though they don't walk the walk.

The thing is, if a politician brings pork to his/her own district, then that might be viewed as a good thing to the local voters. People don't like pork when it goes somewhere else, but if it comes to us and benefits us, then it's great. Bacon for everybody!

Mmmmm..... bacon.

That's exactly it. That's, in a sense, bribing people for votes, and both sides of the aisle are guilty of it.

quote:

quote:

Consumers make up the market. By letting "the market" decide, consumers are deciding. If a business has an unpopular product, shouldn't the market decide and either the business goes bust or improves the product?

Ultimately, it's not really the "market" making the decision here. All the market is doing is deciding whether or not to buy the product. How the business responds to the situation is their decision alone.

And the market will react to how business responds. Business can't force you to buy their product, so you still have a choice. If businesses want you to buy it, they have to convince you to buy it. That's still the market making the decision.

quote:

Strictly speaking, the same arguments can be applied to government, since the voters elect the government. If, as you say, it's up to the "market" to decide, then aren't the same people who make up the market also the ones who make up the electorate? So, as the electorate, as We The People, don't we get to decide what kind of system we live under, even if it taxes the wealthy, interferes with big business, and provides social services for the poor and disadvantaged?
If we are the "market," then we get to decide.

To a point, yes. If an elected representative accurately represents the constituents that elected him/her, then, the people are "deciding." But, if it's not an accurate representation, or if it's not a Constitutionally authorized act the people want, then, there you have it.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

The idea of the Senate was so that each State government would appoint 2 representatives to represent the State governments. Having a popular vote of the State Citizens certainly isn't the same thing.

Well, it's pretty darn close. I don't see that it makes any appreciable difference in practice.

Then why was there any need to change it?

It would seem to make sense that the people of a State should be able to elect their own Representatives and Senators. Why should it be a problem?

Senators represent the States' interests, and Representatives represent the peoples' interests. Two separate things.

quote:

quote:

Outsourcing and offshoring aren't necessarily a bad thing, though. Japanese goods used to cost a lot less and were at least as good a quality as American goods. That spurred American companies to improve their own goods and to find other ways to reduce costs so they could compete. "Foreign" vehicles still cost a little bit more now than American vehicles, but that used to be because of the vehicles being of better quality. Though the increased price is still there, the quality difference isn't (though the perception still may remain). Why? Because American companies improved their products.
People every day choose to buy cheap crap from overseas. Why? Why does business not have a responsibility to provide what the market wants?

A lot of the situation you're addressing has to do with the disparity in standards of living between the US and other areas of the world. As you've noted previously, we have it much better in the US than in many other countries, but this also means that it's more expensive.
It requires more money and higher wages just to be able to live at a certain minimal level, and even then, US workers are not be able to compete with the wages that workers in other countries are willing to take. They've been living in such untold squalor that they'd be willing to take anything at a wage level far below the wages a US worker could take.

And, it's also people thinking they deserve to live at a level greater than what they can earn...

quote:

It's similar to the issue of illegal immigrants which we discussed earlier. They're living in such dire circumstances that they're willing to cross the border and traverse long distances just for a low-wage job that Americans don't want.
So, it's obvious that the whole practice of outsourcing is to capitalize on this lopsided situation, pay foreign workers a pittance, and benefit from the higher profits of doing so - even if the consumers do get a bit of a price break and have the opportunity to buy all the "cheap crap" you mention. It's not so much the lost jobs or even the trade deficit that may be the primary issues, but we may also be bringing on unnecessary geopolitical complications which we may not be adequately prepared for.

People don't have to buy it. People choose to buy it. Why shouldn't business provide what people are willing to buy?

quote:

quote:

I'm not an expert by any means.
I fully believe that the system is the best and any country can be successful by being more capitalistic.

Well, that's your belief, and I respect that. I don't necessarily disagree with it, although I would put more an emphasis on the fact that our society has had a firm commitment to principles of freedom, democracy, social and moral justice - which have prevailed in addition to whatever elements of the free market and industrial capitalism have contributed to the overall well-being of the country. Where I might disagree is in my view that capitalism, in and of itself, isn't all that essential; we could have accomplished the same goals and achieved the same high-quality standard of living by other methods.

I disagree that capitalism wasn't essential to our achievements. I don't believe we'd have enjoyed the same levels of success without it.

quote:

quote:

But, I do believe the level of success we've achieved in the US is also due to the location, geography, natural resources, etc. I don't know that American entrepreneurs are any different from entrepreneurs in other countries, but I do think that our system allows them to achieve more. It's not just the system, imo.

There are a wide variety of factors which might make the difference. Obviously, it can't just be due to a "system" or because "we have freedom and they don't." If these other countries don't have freedom, then it becomes a matter of examining why - and that's what makes it all the more deeply complex.
Some things an American entrepreneur might benefit from is that there is already a great deal of wealth in existence in the country. A computer technician can't make a living where there are no computers (or electricity). A car salesman or gas station owner won't make any money where there are no roads.

It's not just due to a "system." We agree.

I'd find it difficult to think a computer technician would even attempt to make a living where there are no computers or electricity. Any gas station owner or car salesman attempting to build a business where there are no roads deserves the consequences of that decision.

quote:

quote:

But, the interest has nothing to do with the US. All my profits and earnings within the US are still being taxed. If a company in the US bought a company wholly located in Luxembourg, why would the US government have any right to the profits realized by the company in Luxembourg?

Certainly, they have the right to the profits realized by the company in Luxembourg, just as they'd have the right to the profits realized by any company in the United States - just as long as they're taxed.
Strictly speaking, if a US company buys a company in Luxembourg, then they owe a debt of gratitude to the US government, taxpayers, and servicemen who helped liberate that country from Nazi tyranny.
It should also be assumed that the US military would be used to defend any "US interests" overseas, along with these offshore havens where they're putting all their money. If Cuba or Venezuela decided to invade the Cayman Islands and seize all the wealth stored there, who do you think would be there to stop them - and how long do you think it would take?

What did the US do when Venezuela nationalized US companies in Venezuela?

quote:

Considering that these wealthy types hiding all their money away from the US government should have to pay something since they're effectively using the US and its military as a kind of "insurance agency" to back up their holdings and investments.

Uh huh.

quote:

quote:

Does that mean that the Canadian government shouldn't have any right to tax accounts in Canadian banks held by Americans?

No; that's up to the Canadian government to decide.

quote:

Or, should the US Government not have any right to tax profits from accounts held in the US by non-US Citizens?

No, I didn't say that either.

I didn't say you said either. I asked two questions.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Profits made in the US are taxed in the US. Why should the US be allowed to tax profits made outside the US?

Well, no one is forcing anyone to remain a US citizen. If someone wishes to avoid the US taxing their profits made outside the US, then they can always renounce their citizenship and leave the country.

And, they'll still have to pay US taxes for a while.
Isn't that what businesses do in an inversion (which is being fought against by Government)?

Well, if the business owners still stay in America and retain their US citizenship, then it shouldn't matter if they relocate their business to another country. They should still be taxed. Trouble is, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

They are still going to pay on sales in the US. That's not going to change, regardless of where you're HQ'ed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I misinterpreted your comment. I know it's not easy, and totally agree with the FF that it shouldn't be easy. Even if it takes generations to change the meanings of words enough to materially change the way the US Constitution is interpreted, that's still not the way to change the Constitution.

quote:


Yet, the Democrats can't see one step past any policy. They look at the recent past, and make decisions, ignoring that there may be behavioral changes to those decisions, so the policy isn't anything what it was "supposed" to be.

quote:


Off-shoring and outsourcing have brought a greater variety of goods to the US market, and have reduced the costs of those goods to the US consumer. Is that really not good?!?

quote:


Price controls also resulted in rationing and shortages. Great for America! [8|]

quote:


Where the fuck has the "free market" run "unimpeded and unfettered by government interference?"

quote:


A similar discussion was had on these boards, and the majority of posters (pretty much all the left-leaning ones) supported the idea that the state is the guardian and not the parents. Following that (il)logic, the state should be able to step in, no? I completely disagreed with their take, though, so I'm not supporting the state being able to come in and demand parents act responsibly (outside of abuse, neglect, endangerment, etc.).

quote:


Few think the poor, in general, are "lazy bums."

quote:


I'd venture to guess that more of "the rich" have worked their butts off for their money than the poor who are lazy bums. More and more people hit millionaire status every year. Are all these people simply "lucking" into it?

quote:


You're allowing circumstances to dictate whether or not someone is allowed to make bad choices. That's not the way it works. It's not easy to do the right thing, over and over, and over, to pull yourself up and out of bad situations. "Shortcuts" look awfully sweet at times, but they are not usually successful or legal. Shitty situations don't make laws not apply.

quote:


We aren't talking about hurricanes, though, are we?

quote:


I would agree that left-leaning people (stating it that way because outside the US, "liberal" doesn't have the same connotation; in fact, it's been "redefined" in the US from back in the day) tend to support more civil rights, and right-leaning tend to support more property rights. I know it's not exactly what you said, but that's why I didn't say I agree with exactly what you said.

quote:


Mmmmm..... bacon.

That's exactly it. That's, in a sense, bribing people for votes, and both sides of the aisle are guilty of it.

quote:


And the market will react to how business responds. Business can't force you to buy their product, so you still have a choice. If businesses want you to buy it, they have to convince you to buy it. That's still the market making the decision.

quote:


To a point, yes. If an elected representative accurately represents the constituents that elected him/her, then, the people are "deciding." But, if it's not an accurate representation, or if it's not a Constitutionally authorized act the people want, then, there you have it.

quote:


Senators represent the States' interests, and Representatives represent the peoples' interests. Two separate things.

quote:


And, it's also people thinking they deserve to live at a level greater than what they can earn...

quote:


People don't have to buy it. People choose to buy it. Why shouldn't business provide what people are willing to buy?

quote:


I disagree that capitalism wasn't essential to our achievements. I don't believe we'd have enjoyed the same levels of success without it.

quote:


It's not just due to a "system." We agree.

I'd find it difficult to think a computer technician would even attempt to make a living where there are no computers or electricity. Any gas station owner or car salesman attempting to build a business where there are no roads deserves the consequences of that decision.

quote:


What did the US do when Venezuela nationalized US companies in Venezuela?

quote:


Uh huh.

quote:


They are still going to pay on sales in the US. That's not going to change, regardless of where you're HQ'ed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
The quote tags must have gotten fouled up somehow. I am only quoting your most recent comments.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I misinterpreted your comment. I know it's not easy, and totally agree with the FF that it shouldn't be easy. Even if it takes generations to change the meanings of words enough to materially change the way the US Constitution is interpreted, that's still not the way to change the Constitution.

The Constitution was also written somewhat vaguely and open-ended because the Founders also ostensibly believed that future generations would be able to make responsible and sensible decisions.
You can also look at some reinterpretations as not actually changing the Constitution but more of a correction of a previously misinterpreted part.
As one example, for decades the Courts considered that racial segregation was Constitutional under the doctrine of "Separate But Equal." Eventually, the Supreme Court overruled that doctrine and stated (among other things) that it wasn't, in fact, "equal." Did they actually change the Constitution, or did they simply apply a more genuine and true definition of the word "equal" than what was previously used?
It's not that they're actually "changing the Constitution," but instead, they're just interpreting it in a more faithful way and correcting previous misinterpretations.

quote:

quote:

Yet, the Democrats can't see one step past any policy. They look at the recent past, and make decisions, ignoring that there may be behavioral changes to those decisions, so the policy isn't anything what it was "supposed" to be.

True enough, although it doesn't negate or refute the point I was making. I think myopia and a short attention-span have become so pervasive in our political culture that it affects a lot of liberals and conservatives. I think the last US President who actually looked ahead was Jimmy Carter, but he became unpopular even within his own party because people just didn't want to hear about long-term responsibility. Instead, people wanted their instant gratification and embraced irresponsible myopia, leaving Carter in the dust and hitching their wagon to Ronald Reagan, one of the most unintelligent and short-sighted presidents in history.

quote:

quote:

Off-shoring and outsourcing have brought a greater variety of goods to the US market, and have reduced the costs of those goods to the US consumer. Is that really not good?!?

Not if it's done by exploiting, mistreating, or abusing other human beings. It requires the constant application of force, threat of force, coercion, corruption/usurpation of foreign governments - all of which has cost a great deal of money and tainted our national reputation and sense of national honor.
So, it may reduce the costs of these products, but our costs are increased in other areas as a result. If it turns out to be a long-term net loss for America, then it may not be as good as you think.

quote:

quote:

Price controls also resulted in rationing and shortages. Great for America! [8|]

Perhaps a bit of short-term inconvenience in return for long-term prosperity. That's what we got in return in the post-war decades, a period of unprecedented prosperity and growth which substantially improved and enhanced the standard of living for the average American.
The interesting thing about capitalists, conservatives, and others who talk about how great and free this country is, including mentioning our superpower status, our vast wealth and high standard of living - all they're really talking about is the period after the Great Depression and WW2 era. That's all any of us alive today really know first-hand, that's all we've personally experienced. Prior to that, there's very little that conservatives or capitalists can truly brag about.
The peculiar thing about capitalist braggadocio is that the only success stories they can point to is a mixed-socialist welfare state like America and other Western countries.

quote:

Where the fuck has the "free market" run "unimpeded and unfettered by government interference?"

quote:

quote:

A similar discussion was had on these boards, and the majority of posters (pretty much all the left-leaning ones) supported the idea that the state is the guardian and not the parents. Following that (il)logic, the state should be able to step in, no? I completely disagreed with their take, though, so I'm not supporting the state being able to come in and demand parents act responsibly (outside of abuse, neglect, endangerment, etc.).

I don't recall seeing that discussion offhand, although I know similar topics have come up. I don't know if one can strictly draw any right/left differences when it comes family-related matters. I suppose a viewpoint focusing on the civil rights of individuals would extend to that of children, and the state's role might be to defend their rights, too. The state doesn't have to come in and act as guardian, but they have to safeguard the rights of their citizens.

quote:

quote:

Few think the poor, in general, are "lazy bums."

I don't know about that. I've seen some choice comments in this very thread, although I'm not about to call anyone out here. However, I've heard similar views echoed from time to time, especially in this country where so many crow about it having such a great system and such a land of opportunity to the point of implying that if anyone is poor in such an idyllic paradise, then it must be because they are "lazy bums." What other conclusion can one draw about those who fail to thrive in a land of unicorns and rainbows?

quote:

quote:

I'd venture to guess that more of "the rich" have worked their butts off for their money than the poor who are lazy bums. More and more people hit millionaire status every year. Are all these people simply "lucking" into it?

Luck? No, I think the explanation would lie elsewhere. But if someone made their millions selling swamp land in Florida, I'm not sure that would constitute "working their butts off." It wouldn't be "luck," either.

quote:

quote:

You're allowing circumstances to dictate whether or not someone is allowed to make bad choices. That's not the way it works. It's not easy to do the right thing, over and over, and over, to pull yourself up and out of bad situations. "Shortcuts" look awfully sweet at times, but they are not usually successful or legal. Shitty situations don't make laws not apply.

I don't think you really understood the point I was making. I was saying that we need to examine the circumstances and how they can lead to bad choices. It doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether someone "is allowed to make" bad choices.
Such an examination into the circumstances and conditions leading to bad choices might actually give us and our society a much better understanding of the "way it works," which is how progress can be achieved. By studying and investigating something closer and learning more about a societal phenomenon, we (as a society) can understand it better and be able to make effective and intelligent decisions as to how to proceed.

quote:

quote:

We aren't talking about hurricanes, though, are we?

No, but in both cases, we'd be talking about "a situation society will ultimately have to deal with," which is the part you quoted earlier. When we're talking about the lower classes, the disadvantaged, the idle, the unemployed/underemployed - society will be able to endure and sustain some of that, as long as their numbers and percentage of the population remain relatively small. If that increases and more and more people fall through the cracks and the safety nets, then we may have a much bigger problem on our hands than a mere hurricane.

quote:

quote:

I would agree that left-leaning people (stating it that way because outside the US, "liberal" doesn't have the same connotation; in fact, it's been "redefined" in the US from back in the day) tend to support more civil rights, and right-leaning tend to support more property rights. I know it's not exactly what you said, but that's why I didn't say I agree with exactly what you said.

I also try to look at the history and etymology of what we currently call "liberalism" and "conservatism" to get a better perspective. In a general sense, our government like others in the West are what might be called "liberal democracies" compared to the more authoritarian style governments in the world, both past and present.
Strictly speaking, US conservatives today could just as easily call themselves "liberals," but maybe they don't like the word itself, and it would probably confuse a lot of people.
Even terms like "Democrat" and "Republican" as names of political parties don't really make much sense when you come down to it. We live in a democratic-republic, but that doesn't mean we have to choose one or the other.

quote:

quote:

And the market will react to how business responds. Business can't force you to buy their product, so you still have a choice. If businesses want you to buy it, they have to convince you to buy it. That's still the market making the decision.

I would still keep in mind that businesses are made up of people who don't necessarily make decisions in a vacuum, nor do they always feel honor-bound by any particular code of ethics or even the law in some cases. They've been known to lie and misrepresent their products, or if that fails, they might sabotage their competition (or if it's the Mafia, they might just kill them outright); or take other unscrupulous measures so that they can corner the market and make sure the public has no other choice but to buy their product.
Maybe not all of them are as unscrupulous or unethical, but let's face it, we're not talking about a bunch of Boy Scouts here.

quote:

quote:

To a point, yes. If an elected representative accurately represents the constituents that elected him/her, then, the people are "deciding." But, if it's not an accurate representation, or if it's not a Constitutionally authorized act the people want, then, there you have it.

But ultimately, that's up to the courts to decide, and as we mentioned above, sometimes they change their interpretations.
Just as with the market moving slow, it also works the same with government and the electorate. The system is in place and the people have the right to make their choices at both the market place and at the election polls...and by the results of what we can see, they've made bad choices in both arenas.
Obviously, as we agreed above, we can't really protect ourselves from bad choices in a free society. All we can really do is hope that the people make better choices in the future.

quote:

quote:

Senators represent the States' interests, and Representatives represent the peoples' interests. Two separate things.

What State interests would be appreciably different from the interests of the People living in a State? If you can give me a single concrete example from real life, I might be able to understand your point here a bit better.

quote:

quote:

And, it's also people thinking they deserve to live at a level greater than what they can earn...

Possibly, or it could be the reverse. That is, some people at the top are thinking that lower class people should live at a lower level, so they engineer policy to reflect their values.

quote:

Considering the vast amounts of wealth in this country, it's obviously not due to "scarcity" that some people live in squalor while others live so well. There's certainly more than enough to go around and enough for everyone to live well, have a nice home, car, and other luxuries. The only reason why there is such disparity is to satisfy an infantile emotional need on the part of the upper classes. There's no particular logic to it, other than some irrational desire to keep lower-class people and other "riff raff" out of their country clubs and social circles.
Therefore, if society "rewards laziness" and gives people a living at a level relative to a capitalist who believes that he "worked his butt off" to achieve a better standard of living, then the capitalist will feel cheated. That's what most of these discussions are all about; it has nothing to do with logic, scarcity, nor does it have anything to with what's good for the practical benefit of society - or even that capitalism is a better system of organizational efficiency. All of those arguments are smokescreens.

quote:

quote:

People don't have to buy it. People choose to buy it. Why shouldn't business provide what people are willing to buy?

It depends on what the product is and what methods were used to bring that product to market. Our society has already made its own value judgments in this regard, by outlawing some products and services deemed to be "immoral" (such as prohibition on narcotics and prostitution). So based on already-established precedents, society has the option of outlawing or restricting any product or service which might have some degree of immorality tied to it.
By our own standards and values in our society, we have determined that slavery is immoral, child labor is immoral, exploitation and mistreatment of workers is immoral, etc. It would still be immoral no matter if people choose to buy the product or not.

quote:

quote:

I disagree that capitalism wasn't essential to our achievements. I don't believe we'd have enjoyed the same levels of success without it.

It depends on how you define our levels of success. Prior to FDR, this country was not at a very high level of success. There was very little for us to brag about in terms of our "system." Capitalism led us to October, 1929 and the Great Depression. That was their crowning achievement.
Apart from the exploitation, the sweatshops, the civil injustice, the social inequities, the labor unrest, racism, sexism, and a whole host of other social problems, we also appeared quite weak and ineffectual in the eyes of certain politicians in Germany, Japan, and elsewhere in the world who had their eyes on expansionism. They saw us as weak, morally decadent - a country run by a bunch of gangsters. That's what they might have ended up facing if not for FDR and his "communistic" policies (as some people called them), which actually propelled America to its fullest potential and made us into a superpower.
If the USA had capitalism just by itself, we would have been no better off than Brazil. Our adaptability and flexibility in accepting necessary and practical reforms were what made the difference, even if such reforms may have gone against the holy tenets of capitalism. Adhering to an ideology just for the sake of political orthodoxy was not our top priority at that time, unlike today.

quote:

quote:

It's not just due to a "system." We agree.
I'd find it difficult to think a computer technician would even attempt to make a living where there are no computers or electricity. Any gas station owner or car salesman attempting to build a business where there are no roads deserves the consequences of that decision.

But that's the whole point. They wouldn't even try to open up such a business. You're trying to present this image of capitalism as being some independent entrepreneur "working his/her butt off" all by him/herself and making money all on their own. But they're not operating in a vacuum. They receive enormous benefits just for living in a modern, technologically-advanced society, but then they try to act like they don't need that, as if they built everything themselves all from scratch.

quote:

quote:

What did the US do when Venezuela nationalized US companies in Venezuela?

Different scenario.

quote:

quote:

They are still going to pay on sales in the US. That's not going to change, regardless of where you're HQ'ed.

One way or another, they're going to pay, but my main worry at this point is that they're going to end up making the rest of America pay with them.