roil
Beagle
Posts: 9
|
Post by roil on Jan 16, 2003 22:36:12 GMT -5
Don't tell me that all the people that are rich today had to go through the same horrors as a fast-food worker. I doubt 10% of our elected officials have ever had to endure the problems and obsticles that a poor american does today. It is no secret that parents who went to college double their children's chances of going to college. A good work ethic doesn't run in the family, it is the money that makes futures for our children. The american dream is to pull ones-self up by their bootstraps, but it is not our place to tell all that they have to do the same thing.
In addition a minimum wage provides livelyhood for workers. In an economy like today's an employee can't pick and choose that job (if any job) that he or she wants. Pure market forces do not drive our economy and individuals are not paid based purely on their skills as workers. Our country does not have a free-market system, that is a fact. We rely on tariffs, taxes (on buisness), tax dollars paid by consumers and tax-breaks in order to stabalise our economy. As long as we aren't treating buisness like they exist in a free market, there is no reason to treat the employees that way.
Your example of a retail worker is quite extrodanary, and it is wonderful that someone can do that in this day and age, but we don't have to make it as hard on them as possible.
Finaly, the current attempts to stabalize and boost our economy seem the reverse to a free market system. We like to claim that markets drive our economy; that it is a simple issue of supply and demand. If this is the case than Trickle-down (voodoo, reaganomics, etc..) economics are completely at odds with the system we are trying to tout and promote. The money should go to the bottom, where it will trickle up through the market to the buisness owners, not to CEOs and the obscenely wealthy so they can buy a new car or invest more money. If all the money is in investments and none in the market, than the system falls appart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mo on Jan 19, 2003 15:36:44 GMT -5
When a C.E.O. buys a new car, it keeps factory workers employed. Investment means capital for more jobs.
Supply side economics is proven theory, as in the Kennedy and Reagan administrations. Taxes went down and revenues went up. It is not Reagans fault the congress increased spending. Another good example was the horrid results of the "luxury tax". When it was decided that luxury items such as yachts would have heavy taxation, the rich stopped buying, causing thousands of people to lose their jobs.
The government can not give money to the poor without stealing it from someone else, first. Bill Gates has more money then me because he has worked harder and worked SMARTER. He owes me nothing! Why do you think you, or anyone else is entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? Perhaps history has not convinced you of the failure of communism?
|
|
LIberal Woman with a temper
Guest
|
Post by LIberal Woman with a temper on Apr 28, 2003 20:40:10 GMT -5
What is the world coming to?
A RANT WEBSITE FOR LUNATIC RIGHT WINGERS?
YOU Bush supporting idiots
BUSH CANNOT FORM SENTANCES ON HIS OWN let alone run the country
NO WAR WITH IRAQ
IMPEACH BUSH
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Apr 30, 2003 13:13:28 GMT -5
Foamy Dog- Maul me if you must! I just can't keep myself from responding to this bit of irony.
**sentences** I belive that was the word she had in mind. LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Americanboy on May 4, 2003 17:18:54 GMT -5
Just because you have a diluded, idealist view of the world and appear to be angry that you are not in a possition of power doesn't mean that you have the right to attack the man who runs our country, once again i would like to personally congradulate you for being an asshole,
-Will
|
|
|
|
Post by Desarollo on May 4, 2003 23:48:27 GMT -5
First of all free markets in the sense that Adam Smith wrote is not the same as free markets as we have today...Adam Smith truely believed that FREE markets would cause equality to all people....that everyone would gain liberty by casting off the old monarchial and feudalistic systems...the everyday person would be able to gain personal wealth and he actually envisioned a society were everyone basically become on the same foot...this is also what the founding fathers envisioned...its basically classless society threw freedom and equality...of course this isnt how it happened and now the "free" market unproportionally benefits corp etc...the so called "free" market of today is NOT what Adam Smith envisioned at all...read his actual works in their original form not the mutilated versions that people have commented on to support the so called "free" markets of today...the wealth of nations literally was supose to be everyone in a nation becoming wealthy, all the people even the laymen...he never saw the corporations and banking institutions that arose later and perverted the "free" markets
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 5, 2003 0:50:42 GMT -5
Apparently it has worked in the United States. The poorest of the poor in the US, are the fattest people in the world! The poorest of the poor in the US live better then they would in any other country!
The free market system means and has always meant freedom of opportunity, not of outcome! It was never meant to be the socialist/communist utopia you dream of!
|
|
|
|
Post by Desarollo on May 5, 2003 19:05:38 GMT -5
NO...Adam Smith actually expected equality of outcome NOT opportunity...he thought that their would be true economic equality, so did the founding fathers when they made the USA...they WERE doing it to make a utopia...read the declaration of independence and realize that they actually thought the USA was gonna be a land of true EQUALITY in every sense...it was suppose to be an equality of outcome and anyone who says otherwise doesnt understand the original vision for america...what we have now is NOT what the founding fathers or Adam Smith envisioned, plain and simple and its the truth...people have screwed the orinigal vision and act like what we have now is what they wanted and that we have achieved what the planned and thats totally untrue
|
|
|
|
Post by Desarollo on May 5, 2003 19:08:23 GMT -5
And no the poor of america dont live better than the poor of other countries,...take canada for example, the poor have way more benefits there than here because it is a welfare state and they get free medical care etc etc...now the us poor are better off than many other countries i would agree on that
|
|
|
|
Post by BushAWOL on May 15, 2003 21:07:33 GMT -5
Liberal doesn't mean anything like of most of your posts. You all seem to sound alike. Very much sounding like all of the talk radio hosts. You all have very little REAL information, or your own opinions, just follow the pack. You go by what you hear, not by studing truth, and history of what liberal really means. I know many very well to do liberals, and alot of poor conservatives. It's how you were brought up, educated/really studied all types of history, and have an OPEN mind, and don't let the media take your mind from you. Then you will get to the true meanings in history, and politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrett7855 on May 26, 2003 10:42:56 GMT -5
::)Duh-excuse me, and I know this is verbotten, but in the USA, we DON"T speak "The King's English", we speak American English-sorry, FD, I couldn't resist.  Anyway, back to the point--you are completely correct that the term "liberal" has been corrupted, misapropriated (but doesn"t that come naturally to modern liberals?) and generally distorted by people who would more accurately described as socialists. Today's liberals bear little resemblence to the liberals of the 50's and 60's. I believe the change started to become most apparent around the time President Carter took office. Just look at how much damage was done by that administration alone. The first major jump in fuel prices, gigantic runaway inflation rates, a tremendous devaluation of our currency, double digit inflation, the highest unemployment levels (yes, levels, not 'rates'--there is a difference) since the great depression and an outrageous deficit. All in the first real attempt to "level the playing field". You can't really compare Tom Daschell with Hubert Humphry in any way, nor does Teddy Kennedy bear any political resmblance to his own brother's policies (well, except maybe when it comes to philandering, but hey, that's their personal affairs and everybody knows 'it doesn't matter'). |
|
|
|
Post by JesterCerberus on Jun 17, 2003 19:42:28 GMT -5
The difference between the middle class and the lower class isn't matter of motivation or work ethic in most cases; it is simply a matter of opportunity. If you live in a town that is not thriving in our economy then that towns is not going to collect as much money per citizen. So that town's school is not going to have as big a budget which means more students in smaller classrooms with less books and smaller salaries for the teachers. Which means you don’t get as high a caliber of teacher? Do you think that it would be easy to learn difficult scientific and mathematical concepts in small crowed classrooms with a teacher who is not that great and outdated material? What if your parents didn't make that much money and you also had a part time job would you get an academic scholarship? You would probably need one to go to college. What percentage of students in this town do you think would go to college? What opportunities are available to you without a college degree? Not much, so you would probably keep your low paying part time job and just make it a full time job. Making barely enough to live on. Working many so many hours that when you have children you won't have the time or the knowledge to get the past the point you made it to. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Most people who believe in social Darwinism are at the top, and were handed most of the status they have. Some people on the other hand work hard or get luck and break out of the economic constraints placed on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by halcyon985 on Jul 11, 2003 12:45:42 GMT -5
The Free Market Economy you people speak of doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't since the great depression. If you took away government subsidies for big business, and there would be practically NO innovation because corporations have no incentive unless its paid for by the general public. We do live in a welfare state, but its welfare for corporate america, not the other way around....
|
|
|
|
Post by halcyon985 on Jul 11, 2003 13:46:22 GMT -5
Halcyon, we live in a welfare state. Both the rich and the poor get welfare. Well sure there is some aid to the poor here... but realistically, it's not on the scale of "socialist" european countries... And compare this to corporate Welfare? Which is more important. Which if taken away would mean the destruction of our economy as we know it? Take the money from the poor and not many people would care, but take it from business and you would know it on many levels. |
|
|
|
Post by halcyon985 on Jul 11, 2003 14:35:29 GMT -5
If "Uncle Sam" put the same money into social programs instead of subsidies you would have increased spending and a more educated society. But thats the point, that's not whats wanted.
Increased lower class spending could more the offset the gains in the current defense and big business system. However, people would become more involved then, and that wouldn't be helpful to the current power structure in the US.
|
|
