Political Discussion thread

[offshoredrilling]

Originally Posted by OccasionalStray

Vastly more unemployment would follow.

BS

Originally Posted by SweetElizabeth

Okay, bread costs more when that happens.

Next inquiry:

How do we approach businesses like Wal Mart that rape our economy and leave tons of cement when they relocate 1 mile down the road? WHAT could we do to make sure we don't get screwed FINANCIALLY, yet allow for businesses to expand and make money?

I mean, we can't say I am sorry, I don't like you, and you can't make money in the US.

Everyone should be able to make as much money as they wish.

Consider this, though, we all pay taxes, and there is typically a government agency overseeing everything, from Code enforcement to OSHA and BEYOND.

So, how can we prepare to stop a monopoly and price demands from such companies as Wal Mart fairly?

I might add that air waves, telecommunications such as cable, internet, cell phones, ... , medical corporations, utility companies, cemeteries and crematories are some items I consider as dangerous as "Wal Mart"

I use Wal Mart loosely as a general example for discussion purposes. I will share that I do not like shopping there, I do not believe in supporting an evil entity, however, there have been times I have had no where else where I could possibly stop while on the road. A shame really.... .

not all the time. but sometimes I love you

Originally Posted by GP

Why should there be any government intervention to determine how much someone earns? A free market system always balances itself out and people will earn the wages they deserve. If not, find another job.

yup

[Doove]

Originally Posted by GP

A free market system always balances itself out and people will earn the wages they deserve.

Yes and no. In a free market system, people will earn their worth to the free market system. That's not to say, however, that they'll earn their worth to society.

I don't begrudge Rush Limbaugh making $30M/yr (or whatever it is he makes) because, frankly, the money flows in that direction so if it didn't go to him, it would simply go to his bosses. Much like i believe an "overpaid athlete" may as well get what he can because whatever Ralph Wilson doesn't pay the "overpaid athlete", Ralph Wilson will just pay himself.

Which is one not so small part of why i'm as strong in my belief of a progressive tax system as i am. There are other reasons, of course, but i won't get into them here. Anyways, i'm of the firm belief that a police officer is far more important to society than Rush Limbaugh. But since Rush Limbaugh benefits so well from the free market system as compared to the police officer or teacher, he should give back to society at a greater rate than the police officer or teacher.

So no, i don't think anyone should be limited as to what they can earn. But i do think they should accept the fact that what they earn rarely correlates to their worth to society. And therefore, returning some of those earnings back to society in the form of taxes is entirely justifiable.

[SweetElizabeth]

You should outsource more, GP.

[GP]

Originally Posted by Doove

Yes and no. In a free market system, people will earn their worth to the free market system. That's not to say, however, that they'll earn their worth to society.

I don't begrudge Rush Limbaugh making $30M/yr (or whatever it is he makes) because, frankly, the money flows in that direction so if it didn't go to him, it would simply go to his bosses. Much like i believe an "overpaid athlete" may as well get what he can because whatever Ralph Wilson doesn't pay the "overpaid athlete", Ralph Wilson will just pay himself.

Which is one not so small part of why i'm as strong in my belief of a progressive tax system as i am. There are other reasons, of course, but i won't get into them here. Anyways, i'm of the firm belief that a police officer is far more important to society than Rush Limbaugh. But since Rush Limbaugh benefits so well from the free market system as compared to the police officer or teacher, he should give back to society at a greater rate than the police officer or teacher.

So no, i don't think anyone should be limited as to what they can earn. But i do think they should accept the fact that what they earn rarely correlates to their worth to society. And therefore, returning some of those earnings back to society in the form of taxes is entirely justifiable.

A very well thought out and informative post. I almost agree with all of it and I will leave it at that.

[elghund]

Originally Posted by GP

A very well thought out and informative post. I almost agree with all of it and I will leave it at that.

That thumping noise you heard was a dozen people falling off thier chairs in a dead faint, GP!!!!!




elg......

[cowboy8055]

Originally Posted by GP

I am saying, why should there be a minimum wage or even a living wage? Why should the government have any say? Some jobs are not meant for people to make a living off of. What about students? There are many entry level jobs that they take while still living with Mom and Dad.

Would a living wage apply to all entry level jobs? And what would that wage be? I imagine it would be considerably more than 7.25/hr. Could you image the effect it would have on small businesses. Even big business would take a hit. Have fun buying a burger and fries at Burger King if they have to pay a living wage to cashiers.

[cowboy8055]

Originally Posted by elghund

That thumping noise you heard was a dozen people falling off thier chairs in a dead faint, GP!!!!!

Or we time warped forward and it's really 12-21-12 the end of the Mayan calendar LOL

[Guest121613]

doove, best post ever for u. Just as people can give back in taxes to support society, any other charitable needs, a mandate portion of which is taxes. As taxpayer and voter, I become a stakeholder. Even as a conservative, I am happy to pay taxes, but I also want to see tax dollars put to use to build lives, make better schools, even school lunch programs and have a strong military, not to give free rides to the lazy. I know it is hard to judge this, as it is hard to judge those who value to society. But there is tremendous abuse today. Mostly be hiding income, or milking disabilities.
I love the athletes that visit children in hospitals, is a great way to give back. Many wealthy people employee people and keep people working which is a way of giving back. And that can result in significant deductions in business expenses.
Both parties have issues, and the one that needs to stop is putting spends in place without a revenue plan to support with funding, or maybe cutting other programs to support a more important plan. Many have different opinions as to what is more important, and that is why we have congress, LOL. (Typing wijt thbumbs)

[Guest121613]

Ok, this is just too funny not to share, please don't take it too seriously

[offshoredrilling]

Originally Posted by Doove

Yes and no. In a free market system, people will earn their worth to the free market system. That's not to say, however, that they'll earn their worth to society.

I don't begrudge Rush Limbaugh making $30M/yr (or whatever it is he makes) because, frankly, the money flows in that direction so if it didn't go to him, it would simply go to his bosses. Much like i believe an "overpaid athlete" may as well get what he can because whatever Ralph Wilson doesn't pay the "overpaid athlete", Ralph Wilson will just pay himself.

Which is one not so small part of why i'm as strong in my belief of a progressive tax system as i am. There are other reasons, of course, but i won't get into them here. Anyways, i'm of the firm belief that a police officer is far more important to society than Rush Limbaugh. But since Rush Limbaugh benefits so well from the free market system as compared to the police officer or teacher, he should give back to society at a greater rate than the police officer or teacher.

So no, i don't think anyone should be limited as to what they can earn. But i do think they should accept the fact that what they earn rarely correlates to their worth to society. And therefore, returning some of those earnings back to society in the form of taxes is entirely justifiable.

Originally Posted by GP

A very well thought out and informative post. I almost agree with all of it and I will leave it at that.

Originally Posted by elghund

That thumping noise you heard was a dozen people falling off thier chairs in a dead faint, GP!!!!!




elg......

mmmmm och I agree with most of Doove's post.

Originally Posted by lostforkate

Ok, this is just too funny not to share, please don't take it too seriously

yup

[GP]

Originally Posted by lostforkate

doove, best post ever for u. Just as people can give back in taxes to support society, any other charitable needs, a mandate portion of which is taxes. As taxpayer and voter, I become a stakeholder. Even as a conservative, I am happy to pay taxes, but I also want to see tax dollars put to use to build lives, make better schools, even school lunch programs and have a strong military, not to give free rides to the lazy. I know it is hard to judge this, as it is hard to judge those who value to society. But there is tremendous abuse today. Mostly be hiding income, or milking disabilities.
I love the athletes that visit children in hospitals, is a great way to give back. Many wealthy people employee people and keep people working which is a way of giving back. And that can result in significant deductions in business expenses.
Both parties have issues, and the one that needs to stop is putting spends in place without a revenue plan to support with funding, or maybe cutting other programs to support a more important plan. Many have different opinions as to what is more important, and that is why we have congress, LOL. (Typing wijt thbumbs)

Another excellent post. You guys are like butter because you are on a roll!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by cowboy8055

Have fun buying a burger and fries at Burger King if they have to pay a living wage to cashiers.

I absolutely agree, which would segue to my next point. You and I and GP and Lostforkate benefit financially from people making $7.25/hr or $8/hr or even $10/hr just as much, if not moreso, than those people benefit from our paying for their medicaid, or food stamps, or whatever assistance they may require.

Don't think for a second that society as a whole doesn't benefit from the existence of poor people. Frankly, capitalism needs people making minimum wage just as much as it needs so-called "job creators". And as i like to tell myself, if everyone made at least as much money as i did, then i'd be one of the poor people.

Originally Posted by lostforkate

Even as a conservative, I am happy to pay taxes, but I also want to see tax dollars put to use to build lives, make better schools, even school lunch programs and have a strong military, not to give free rides to the lazy. I know it is hard to judge this, as it is hard to judge those who value to society. But there is tremendous abuse today.

I don't disagree that there's abuse. Even a lot of it, but a few points in that regard. There will never be 100% employment. Isn't "full employment" considered to be somewhere in the 3%-4% unemployment range? So there will always be people who aren't abusing the system who need help, and they will be intermingled with the people who abuse the system. If the lazy bum across the street gets a job, good for him, but that's just taking that job from someone else. So whether my tax dollars go to him perpetually, or to him for 6 months, then someone else for 3 months, then someone else for 9 months, that's not something i'm going to get myself all worked up over.

And i've made this point 5 or 6 times (if not more) in various areas of this board. If someone can come up with an idea to rid the system of the abuse, while insuring that not one truly deserving person is denied assistance, i'll listen. Until then, i'm willing to hold my nose and put up with the abuse.

[GP]

doove, you make excellent points. I commend you on your last couple of posts without the snippy remarks. I think we might actually have a chance at some form of intelligent discussion. With that said.

I might be referring to another thread, but it fits in here as well. The idea that "everyone is created equal" albeit sounds very noble, is not based in reality. Some people ARE smarter or more genetically gifted than others. Some people are lucky. Some people just work VERY hard to get where they are. I don't think that we should take away from the those people to bring the less fortunate up to their level. Yes, there is always some schmuck who got the short end of the straw and will need our help. I don't think anyone is against someone being helped out temporarily by the government through our taxes. Unfortunately, I am not as willing as you are to hold my nose and put up with the abuse.

What's the solution? I have absolutely no freaking clue.

[SweetElizabeth]

How about requiring Wal Mart type of corporations to remove vacated cement or have a business plan of what to do with it. Example warehouse... I was just recently chatting with my brother about this, and I think his suggestion is dead on. Additionally, the topic of volunteers was interesting. As I stated to him, altruism is sometimes difficult to find.

I tried to stay as involved as possible with the schools when my children were young. I personally cannot volunteer myself at many levels because of my job. I do hope that some of my thoughts, even here, are considered by men who do volunteer. Also, I would encourage the men who are able to view the big picture and the long run to consider doing so.
:-)

[GP]

I am curious why you have such an interest in Walmart type corporations and their vacated cement?