One of the more ridiculous statements in the history of this board. Only one who has never lived on $8k, or even $18k, or lived responsibly on $100k could possibly believe it.
Tim
Republican bill passes, opening path to debt deal
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
- Status
One of the more ridiculous statements in the history of this board. Only one who has never lived on $8k, or even $18k, or lived responsibly on $100k could possibly believe it.
Tim
You know that gold is apparently very rare throughout the the universe. I didn't know that but the process that is needed to create the heavier elements is very rare hence gold being rare. Learned it from the Brian Cox specials on the Science channel. Makes Aliens and Cowboys a LITTlE more realistic.
Yes, but I'm assuming Mark exaggerates for effect, not that he actually believes that.
Tim
Capitalism is itself only a means and leaves it to the individual to decide the types of goals to be pursued. The intellectual basis of capitalism is that the individual is free and has certain inviolable natural rights. Within a system of capitalism, the proper role of government is simply to enable people to pursue happiness on their own. Happiness cannot be given to people—they must attain it through their own efforts. The government cannot supply more than the prerequisite conditions.
No economic system can make good men or make men good. The best that an economic system can do is allow men to be good. Morality requires the freedom to be immoral. Capitalism, the system that maximizes this freedom, cannot guarantee a moral society; however, it is a necessary condition for one. Only when an individual has choice and bears responsibility for his actions can he be moral. Choice (i.e., free will) is the foundation of virtue. Morality involves choice and the use of practical reason in making that choice. Capitalism is consistent with the fundamental moral principles of life itself and, compared to other economic systems, is the most conducive to the use of man’s free will, which makes moral behavior possible. Capitalism is the only social system that is in accord with the central role that practical reason plays in the moral lives of persons.
The highly individualized and self-directed nature of personal flourishing requires that practical reason be employed by a person confronting the particular and contingent facts of his concrete situation and determining at the time of action what is, in those circumstances, good and proper for him. Capitalism is the only system that protects and permits such conduct and therefore is a system compatible with human flourishing.
Capitalism is a political and economic system in which an individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property are protected by law. It is the system most able to make personal flourishing possible. By securing personal freedom, capitalism makes the successful pursuit of individual happiness more likely. A capitalist society can be viewed as a just society because all individuals are considered to be equal under the law.
Capitalism is derived from a worldview that holds that: (1) man’s mind is competent to deal with reality; (2) the purpose of natural rights is to protect self-directedness; (3) it is morally proper for each person to strive for his personal flourishing and happiness; (4) the only appropriate social system is one in which the initiation of physical force is forbidden; and (5) it is not necessary to first reach metaphysical or religious agreement to agree on the desirability of an arrangement in which people do not use violence or fraud to injure others or deprive others of their legitimately held possessions. Capitalism is the only moral social system because it protects a man’s primary means of survival and flourishing—his mind.
I was speaking from experience, not a hypothetical.
I'm glad you added the smiley. You couldn't get food and shelter in New Milford CT for $8K a year, much less electronic goodies. And if you can't afford a few electronic goodies when you're making $100k, you haven't a clue how to manage your money.
Tim
Tim, please replace your avatar post-haste! It's as if you are peering down at me watching my every move and it scares hell outta me
Mark
Not a point by point reply to your post. What you fail to figure in your reasoning is the cost of keeping any ideal. How is such freedom maintained? Surely it must have a cost. All by itself the individual can't defend himself and often even when the needs is there to defend him or herself, the individual may not possess the necessary skills. Now a more complicated question: Where does your freedom ends? Pursuing happiness again has a cost, when does this cost infringe on the freedom of your fellow human beings? What should a society do when the pursuit of one's happiness result in the unhappiness of the many? Do you really think that people will auto regulate, i-e just go after their very own personal happiness without impacting the life of others? To have people behaving in a proper fashion, requires some regulations don't you think, some rules, don't you think? And enforcing those rules must have a cost don't you think? And whose to pay for these costs? The individuals.. Ok now what would happen when these individuals in the pursuit of their very own happiness, refuse to pay for these costs, to participate in society if you will? Enforce the laws... Right and at what cost?
This seems to be lost too many times on the concept of individual freedom and rights. They do not exist in a vacuum, rahter in a confined space called a society itself part of a much grandeur space called mankind or humanity ... Yhis obligatory coexistence is difficult to maintain without morality and sometimes its costly enforcement... The maintenance of this balance requires rules and they, in turn, imply a cost and this cost is what so many hates so vehemently: Taxes. the Cost of Civilization , to paraphrase Alexis de Tocqueville
Frantz,
I enjoyed your thoughtful post. I would say that the legitimate rights enshrined in the Declaration are rights to action and to pursue your individual vision of happiness. They are not rights to rewards from others. Those rights end where they encroach upon the rights of others; hence the need for a limited rule set with appropriate enforcement. This vision is enshrined in the Constitution which envisions and enumerates a limited Federal government. As the architect of the Constitution James Madison noted in Federalist #45 "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." Certainly one of those powers is national defense. Another is securing the border. These are societal costs that should be shared.
To have people 'behave in proper fashion' illuminates the modern progressive dilemma. What is proper behavior, especially if a central tenant of your non-judgmental ethos is that all cultural and lifestyle choices are equally valid? Who is to decide what is 'proper' behavior; the majority of the population? Elected officials? Unelected regulators? Judges? This is antithetical to conception of divinely given rights enshrined in the Declaration. The very Orwellian idea of 'proper behavior' hints at the authoritarian impulse inherent in Progressivism, manifest in a large, coercive government which attempts to decide what is 'fair' and to mold individual's behavior to fit their concept of 'proper' behavior.
I enjoyed your thoughtful post. I would say that the legitimate rights enshrined in the Declaration are rights to action and to pursue your individual vision of happiness. They are not rights to rewards from others. Those rights end where they encroach upon the rights of others; hence the need for a limited rule set with appropriate enforcement. This vision is enshrined in the Constitution which envisions and enumerates a limited Federal government. As the architect of the Constitution James Madison noted in Federalist #45 "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." Certainly one of those powers is national defense. Another is securing the border. These are societal costs that should be shared.
To have people 'behave in proper fashion' illuminates the modern progressive dilemma. What is proper behavior, especially if a central tenant of your non-judgmental ethos is that all cultural and lifestyle choices are equally valid? Who is to decide what is 'proper' behavior; the majority of the population? Elected officials? Unelected regulators? Judges? This is antithetical to conception of divinely given rights enshrined in the Declaration. The very Orwellian idea of 'proper behavior' hints at the authoritarian impulse inherent in Progressivism, manifest in a large, coercive government which attempts to decide what is 'fair' and to mold individual's behavior to fit their concept of 'proper' behavior.
Taken to it's logical conclusion then the federal government would have no right to regulate the powers it grants. Such as banking, patents,the right to incorporate, enforcement of contracts, use of the airways,etc. Nations are formed not just to share benefits but to spread risks.
Bernanke Speech Moves Markets: No New Stimulus
Is the Fed out of bullets
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bernanke-speech-us-economy/story?id=14387079
Is the Fed out of bullets
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bernanke-speech-us-economy/story?id=14387079
No, the Fed is not out of bullets, DC is out of the political will to stimulate our way out of the recession hole. Frankly, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. We sure need to get out of the hole. A double-dip right now would be very painful, and the lesson of history is that draconian cost-cutting measures dig that hole deeper and this is not the time to cut taxes or spending.
On the other hand, there's another hole; the deficit hole. Anything we might do to stimulate our way out of the recession hole will dig deeper into the deficit hole, and that could make things much worse down the road...maybe...unless it works and the economy starts growing again which is the best deficit medicine of all. Is the lesson of the future more important than the lessons of the past? I don't know, we're not there yet and my crystal ball is on the fritz. Well, part of it is working. You know that Warren Buffet bought 5 billion in Bank of America stock yesterday, right? I can't buy like Warren, but I bought a lot for me...the day before yesterday. I made a couple of grand by the time I got through my first cup of coffee yesterday. Of course I really don't get to feel smart until I sell. I'm going to try not to screw that one up.
Tim
On the other hand, there's another hole; the deficit hole. Anything we might do to stimulate our way out of the recession hole will dig deeper into the deficit hole, and that could make things much worse down the road...maybe...unless it works and the economy starts growing again which is the best deficit medicine of all. Is the lesson of the future more important than the lessons of the past? I don't know, we're not there yet and my crystal ball is on the fritz. Well, part of it is working. You know that Warren Buffet bought 5 billion in Bank of America stock yesterday, right? I can't buy like Warren, but I bought a lot for me...the day before yesterday. I made a couple of grand by the time I got through my first cup of coffee yesterday. Of course I really don't get to feel smart until I sell. I'm going to try not to screw that one up.
Tim
I think in reality once a recession has kicked in or on the cards you cannot buy your way out either with QE or government spending, and you cannot cut your way out by reducing public spending.
I am coming to this conclusion by looking what is happening in North America to the UK, two very different approaches and both still heading the same way.
However the critics of each policy seem to be ignoring what is happening across the Atlantic to them, a Conservative UK case they could make is look at how spending is not helping in North America and yet they remain very quiet on this, the Labour socialist party want much higher spending here even though we have an ugly deficit and debt ourselves - global politics and diplomacy at work I guess.
Only Western country that still seems financially well is that of Germany (which ironically is propping up the Euro and a few European countries), real western powerhouse in terms of manufacturing and government finance.
Cheers
Orb
I am coming to this conclusion by looking what is happening in North America to the UK, two very different approaches and both still heading the same way.
However the critics of each policy seem to be ignoring what is happening across the Atlantic to them, a Conservative UK case they could make is look at how spending is not helping in North America and yet they remain very quiet on this, the Labour socialist party want much higher spending here even though we have an ugly deficit and debt ourselves - global politics and diplomacy at work I guess.
Only Western country that still seems financially well is that of Germany (which ironically is propping up the Euro and a few European countries), real western powerhouse in terms of manufacturing and government finance.
Cheers
Orb
Tim
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that if we can get out of the recession the deficit will grow or shrink
Not necessarily. As "deficit" is currently defined it's just a formula that's not very useful. It has nothing directly to do with the jobs, the availability of credit, or most of the things that actually drive the economy. It just counts how many quarters we've gone without growth. Technically, we're not in a recession right now. Tell that to all the people out their unemployed, underemployed, draining their already diminished retirement accounts, losing their houses, etc. Announce the recovery to those guys!
But if we could get out of this....slump? Jobless recovery? Undefined painful economic anomally?...and get the economy growing off of wall street, that would absolutely shrink the deficit. More start-ups. More business health. More jobs. More tax revenues....Falling deficits. The question is how do you get there after you've off-shored entire sectors of business and the jobs are not coming back? Make new jobs.
Government spending, of any kind, without equal revenue, will increase the deficit. That math is pretty simple, and a bunch of pretty simple people are screaming it at the tops of their lungs, every day. Ask them who is going to make the strategic investments that will create short-term jobs building the infrastructures and the industries that will create long-term jobs. Ask them who is going to write the code for America 3.0 so we don't just invent the next big thing then send the royalty checks to Wall Street and the jobs off shore again, leaving ourselves with exactly the same problem we have today. And when they tell you the market is going to do that, take a look at the world around you and laugh...if you've still got a sense of humor by the time you get there.
Tim
Actually, the smiley meant that there are certain, uh, methods involved that make living possible at $8K/year (what a freelance videographer in CT makes), some of them extreme thrift (no cable TV, prepaid cell phone, no restaurant dining, Ramen noodles, rice as mainstay, etc) and some of them accounting tricks and some of them more extreme.. how does one keep an annual $10.7K property tax at bay and work up an $89K back taxes and interest and still remain in his home? I'll let you use your imagination on that one..
But I do know a person who makes $100K and he thinks I must be a drug dealer because he frequently comments that he can't afford the stuff I bought over the years. No, I earn my living HONESTLY, which is probably why it's so small. My neighbor is a shyster on Wall St and has a huge mortgage (I have none--I built the house by hand 46 years ago on land I bought with inheritance money), my other neighbor is a land developer who breaks laws constantly to gain advantage, but because he's also a part of the government representative component, he gets away with massive abuse of the rules for personal gain. Meanwhile, I work hard, many hours a day, telemarketing my services to hundreds of businesses... at the end of a year, I may get two modest paying gigs out of the deal. But at least I am doing what I was born to do and my health has improved since I retired from the corporate job market a quarter century ago. I care about freedom and quality of life more than having a lot of money. What good is money if you're never able to take the time to enjoy it?
The failure of a taxed society is ultimately that it leads to a society that few would want to live under. Look at the US today, where you go to jail for selling raw milk, where Gibson Guitars is under attack for the wood it uses to make it's frets, where a lobster fishing company CEO goes to prison for 8 years because of the dumb Lacey Act which applies nonexistent foreign laws to an American citizen, and the list goes on. I would rather live in anarchy than have an organized militia calling on me. A few thugs are easier to take out than US troops with the latest in megabucks hardware to kill you with.
A government that becomes powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take everything you have. And indeed the US government has the highest prison population in the world, despite being 5% of world population, we have 23 million people in prison, a quarter of the world's prison population--even higher than China.
Until Progressivism and Agenda 21 started creeping into American government, the cost of protecting our borders was a fraction of a percent of GDP. Now we are on a death spiral of exploding regulatory burdens, criminalization of almost every normal and natural activity, and on the path to starting WWIII with our international policies.
In a moral society, a man is free to pursue his ideals, goals and happiness up to the limit where it begins to impinge on another man's well-being. Rights have limits. And in the case where we have a few irrational beings violating other's rights, that's what the courts are for.
Once an involuntary extraction of labor/money/property becomes acceptable to the population, the stage is set for the escalation of such activity.
In 1939, a friend of mine's paycheck was $69 (he was a refrigeration engineer, a good paying career at that time).. his total tax taken out was $0.69. After WWII, the tax rates went ballistic. And they continue to do so, but in every more concealed and clever ways.
Now it's great for the rich bastads to say that 'taxes are part of civilized society', but for the less well-heeled among us, the only way to survive and keep our homes can sometimes literally be making a stand and promising to make the cost of state sponsored terrorism very high indeed. Every cop wants to come home in one piece at the end of his shift, even if he is misused as a tax collector/property expropriator. The system of taxes extorts from the poor working folks (the ones that actually BUILD things) and hands it over to the wealthy non-working folks (those that make money on paper, manipulating numbers on a computer screen that cause the rest of the dumb masses to become poor when they retire.) For the poor, the court system is out of reach (and it's corrupted anyway to bias in favor of the moneyed), leaving the only option left: a mouse, when cornered, can become very violent.
- Status
Similar threads
