Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

Greed, as a motivator of human ingenuity, is not evil. Without 'greed' there would be no human desire to improve ourselves.

Nonsense. You can desire a better life. That's not greed.

You're not suggesting anything...

The free market system is far superior to anything you have or can suggest.

Well which is it? Di I or did I not "suggest"?

And then turn around and seek to find away to exploit that member for not 'spreading the wealth' enough.

So now you know what happens in every instance? Most likely they simply get good paying jobs at the new company.

The free market model is responsible for creating a degree of prosperity in America not seen in the history of the world. It must be so very hard to whine about 'oppression' in all this prosperity.

What you call a "free market" produced indentured servanthood, asbestosis, black lung, pinkerton security and company store scripts. It was the labor movement that gave the working man (even the unorganized ones) a good quality of life. You can make an argument that capitalism works because workers are free to organize and I'll buy that but that's not what you're doing.

Your philosophy is idealistic. It does not add value, it rather, defines itself by what it is against. Again, you imagine a world where you are 'victimized'. People fail, not because they lack ambition and drive, but because they are 'victimized'. I can see how this would be comforting to those with no ambition.....It's also clearly a lie. You have built a philosophy out of averice and jealousy, as such, it is nothing but a negative philosophy who's only purpose is to destroy that which you envy....why? Becaue you want to HAVE what those who you envy possess.


You keep accusing me of making the claim that success is impossible. Success and prosperity are very possible (Labor has organized itself and gained success and prosperity). You have built your whole argument on accusing me of things I never said. You offer nothing of any substance. You twist my words then counter the meaning you have assigned to them. Don't accuse me of whining again.

I know a successful carpenter who started his own business. His union gave him the training as a journeyman. He took advantage of Hurricane Rita. His workers are happy and his prices are about 40% below everyone else's. I'm a head draftsman in the division of a large European corporation who is known for investing in it's people. I got there by being ambitious and innovative. I could not have done it working for du Pont though. Thankfully because of the labor movement us workers are not in perpetual debt to our employers. We have the freedom (thanks to the labor movement and government intervention) to quit and go elsewhere for more money. We don't have to buy our tools from the company then work at wages so low that we can never pay off our investment. We don't have buy overpriced junk at the company store. We can spread the wealth around to other retailers thereby improving their business and getting a better deal.

I'm all for a free economy. I'm for ambition. I'm also for working people and small entrepreneurs remaining vigilant and using any means necessary against those who would steal their innovations or cheat them out of a good paycheck. I am not for climbing the corporate ladder by back-stabbing my fellow man. And I'm definitely not for starting wars to increase profits.

I'm leaving this thread now before I get in trouble with the mods. Feel free to put more words in my mouth. In the end you know I'm correct. I hope you've enjoyed pulling my chain. I've enjoyed pulling yours.
 
Well, you can try and make the argument that Bill Gates 'stole' windows.

Actually I believe the reference is to much further in Gate's past where we went 'dumpster diving' for the code listings of fellow classmates.

However, Gates only got the opportunity to sell MS-DOS to IBM because of the connections his (rich) mom had to IBM. Gates himself did not at the time have a product but quickly turned around and bought QDOS from a small company and that's pretty much what got sold to IBM and started Microsoft.
 
FearlessFreep said:
Well, you can try and make the argument that Bill Gates 'stole' windows.

Actually I believe the reference is to much further in Gate's past where we went 'dumpster diving' for the code listings of fellow classmates.

However, Gates only got the opportunity to sell MS-DOS to IBM because of the connections his (rich) mom had to IBM. Gates himself did not at the time have a product but quickly turned around and bought QDOS from a small company and that's pretty much what got sold to IBM and started Microsoft.

Okay this really is my last post. Thanks for that bit of info. I didn't know that Gates had those connections. It just reinforces my point that while a certain degree of success is possible through hard work success on that level depends on other factors.
 
bustr said:
Nonsense. You can desire a better life. That's not greed.
Greedy is a word used by someone who wants someone, to describe someone who has something. In other words, greed is a word used by the envious, to describe someone who won't just hand over what the envious want.

bustr said:
Well which is it? Di I or did I not "suggest"?
I think I made it clear that it's superior to any system you can or have suggested, at any time past or present. I don't see the confusion.

bustr said:
So now you know what happens in every instance? Most likely they simply get good paying jobs at the new company.
I think I made it clear. Someone else forms a company, and your mentality now decides THEY are the enemy. Your entire philosopy, after all, is built around envy.

bustr said:
What you call a "free market" produced indentured servanthood, asbestosis, black lung, pinkerton security and company store scripts. It was the labor movement that gave the working man (even the unorganized ones) a good quality of life. You can make an argument that capitalism works because workers are free to organize and I'll buy that but that's not what you're doing.
Before that 'free market' lives were far shorter, and far worse than after the free market existed. Your fantasy is that there existed, some time in the past, some paradise that was not based on a free market. That is pure fantasy. That you can list 'black lung' and 'company stores' is nothing but an indication of your short-sightedness. We live in the most prosperous nation on the planet. What's more, those nations as prosperous as us, also participate in the free market. It is the free market system that has produced that prosperity. Where else did you think it came from? It's obvious that you are too preoccupied with the envy/class warfare mentality to take a long view of history.

bustr said:
You keep accusing me of making the claim that success is impossible. Success and prosperity are very possible (Labor has organized itself and gained success and prosperity). You have built your whole argument on accusing me of things I never said. You offer nothing of any substance. You twist my words then counter the meaning you have assigned to them. Don't accuse me of whining again.
I accuse you of simply taking an adversarial, attack the core of western prosperity, view in which you call anyone who manages to succeed 'greedy'. It's based on envy and spite, and it's ultimately destructive.

bustr said:
I know a successful carpenter who started his own business. His union gave him the training as a journeyman. He took advantage of Hurricane Rita. His workers are happy and his prices are about 40% below everyone else's.
The free market works.

bustr said:
I'm a head draftsman in the division of a large European corporation who is known for investing in it's people. I got there by being ambitious and innovative. I could not have done it working for du Pont though.

This isn't about du Pont. This is about the free market, devoid of as much government interference as reasonably possible.

bustr said:
Thankfully because of the labor movement us workers are not in perpetual debt to our employers. We have the freedom (thanks to the labor movement and government intervention) to quit and go elsewhere for more money. We don't have to buy our tools from the company then work at wages so low that we can never pay off our investment. We don't have buy overpriced junk at the company store. We can spread the wealth around to other retailers thereby improving their business and getting a better deal.
Then you should consider where the wealth came from to begin with. Without a profit to begin with, there would be no company to 'bargain' with.

bustr said:
I'm all for a free economy. I'm for ambition. I'm also for working people and small entrepreneurs remaining vigilant and using any means necessary against those who would steal their innovations or cheat them out of a good paycheck. I am not for climbing the corporate ladder by back-stabbing my fellow man. And I'm definitely not for starting wars to increase profits.
Intellectual property is one thing, and stealing 'innovations' of someone else is a violation of intellectual property rights.

As far as 'back stabbing' that's a pretty subjective issue.

bustr said:
I'm leaving this thread now before I get in trouble with the mods. Feel free to put more words in my mouth. In the end you know I'm correct. I hope you've enjoyed pulling my chain. I've enjoyed pulling yours.
I always enjoy pulling chains.
icon12.gif


As far as 'in the end' it's clear that what you're doing is simply taking a bit of narrow view of what capitalism has brought to America. The reality is that what ever prosperity we have is a result of those 'greedy capitalists' who produced those fortunes to begin with. Without first creating those fortunes, there would be nothing for organized labor to demand a share of.
 
bustr said:
Okay this really is my last post. Thanks for that bit of info. I didn't know that Gates had those connections. It just reinforces my point that while a certain degree of success is possible through hard work success on that level depends on other factors.
Actually, Gates is an exception, not the rule. The vast majority of American super-fortunes can be traced back to very humble beginnings, usually involving driven men who started in poverty. There is nothing in their stories that even remotely do anything except destroy your point, rather than reinforce it.
 
Well, given how the Republican Administration, and the Republican Legislators in this country are working so hard, to put so many into poverty, we should look forward to many, many more 'Super-Fortunes" in the future.

Isn't that what you are saying?
 
michaeledward said:
Well, given how the Republican Administration, and the Republican Legislators in this country are working so hard, to put so many into poverty, we should look forward to many, many more 'Super-Fortunes" in the future.

Isn't that what you are saying?
Well, considering 'more and more people' aren't entering poverty, it would appear you're operating under a false premise at the outset. As such, I'd say it's really quite impossible for you to understand what i'm saying.
icon12.gif
 
sgtmac_46 said:
Well, considering 'more and more people' aren't entering poverty, it would appear you're operating under a false premise at the outset. As such, I'd say it's really quite impossible for you to understand what i'm saying.

I wonder if it is difficult to be so wrong, so often.

The poverty rate in 2003 rose to 12.5%, up from 12.1% in 2002. About 35.9 million people were poor in 2003, 1.3 million more than in 2002. Both the number and rate have risen for three consecutive years, from 31.6 million and 11.3% in 2000, to 35.9 million and 12.5% in 2003.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104520.html

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Aug. 2004 supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS). Web: www.census.gov.
 
Ouch...

C'mon Sgt, even you can't believe that last statement of yours. At least be intellectually honest.
 
michaeledward said:
I wonder if it is difficult to be so wrong, so often.



http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104520.html

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Aug. 2004 supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS). Web: [URL="http://www.census.gov."]www.census.gov.[/URL]
There has never been a time in history where there has been so little poverty. Perhaps you could point to one and demonstrate how wrong i'm not.
icon12.gif


The word 'Poverty' is very subjective. There are not more 'poor people' now. There are statistical fluctuations in how we define poverty, versus median income, inflation, and other factors. REAL poverty, on the other hand, real absolute poverty is such a rarity in America as to be a complete anomalie. We use 'poverty' rates as a political class-warfare rallying point. But the poor in America are better off than 99% of the human beings who ever lived on this planet before.

You can point to no society in the history of the world that have a higher standard of living for the majority of it's citizens than currently achieved by the nations we refer to as 'capitalist'. Thank you for playing, though.
 
sgtmac_46 said:
There has never been a time in history where there has been so little poverty. Perhaps you could point to one and demonstrate how wrong i'm not.
icon12.gif
Perhaps YOU could cite YOUR source this time.

sgtmac_46 said:
The word 'Poverty' is very subjective. There are not more 'poor people' now. There are statistical fluctuations in how we define poverty, versus median income, inflation, and other factors. REAL poverty, on the other hand, real absolute poverty is such a rarity in America as to be a complete anomalie. We use 'poverty' rates as a political class-warfare rallying point. But the poor in America are better off than 99% of the human beings who ever lived on this planet before.

You can point to no society in the history of the world that have a higher standard of living for the majority of it's citizens than currently achieved by the nations we refer to as 'capitalist'. Thank you for playing, though.
The very fact that it is subjective does not change the fact that poverty is still poverty. Whether you want to admit it or not, poverty IS alive and well in America.
 
shesulsa said:
The very fact that it is subjective does not change the fact that poverty is still poverty. Whether you want to admit it or not, poverty IS alive and well in America.

Well, it is important to note that when you talk about poverty in America you are talking about people who tend too get fat more than people with higher incomes. In my grandfather's time people starved to death. So I do happen to think that we are getting richer. And I think the comment about there never being so little poverty is a valid one when you take that into account. Americans, even the poorest ones, have things that people in other countries envy. We have so much wealth that we can reach into our pockets and help out those that have less than us.
 
Don Roley said:
Well, it is important to note that when you talk about poverty in America you are talking about people who tend too get fat more than people with higher incomes. In my grandfather's time people starved to death. So I do happen to think that we are getting richer. And I think the comment about there never being so little poverty is a valid one when you take that into account. Americans, even the poorest ones, have things that people in other countries envy. We have so much wealth that we can reach into our pockets and help out those that have less than us.
I completely agree - and I've typed on this before on another thread on poverty specifically. Poverty in America can't compare to poverty in Africa or Asia, this is a given. Poor people in America (those who can obtain food via food stamps and/or welfare, SSI) eat lots of starches and fats - fills you up, tastes good and cheap. If you look at the homeless population, however, which is a little closer to the poverty our grandparents witnessed (I remember our conversation over coffee), you will see a truer sample - thin, dirty, ill ....

However ...

Though we have wealth in America, we have a problem with appropriate spending and hoarding. An example of how trickle-down fails: my daughter collected donations for the battered women's shelter. The working-class neighborhood residents dug deep and gave as many items as they could - even bought some new items to donate (these were personal care/hygeine items), but the white-collar high-end neighborhood turned her away with rare exception. See, here's what I think - people will understand how important their actions are if they can relate to the problem. If they cannot relate to the problem, they must choose to either disassociate from the problem or empathize with it. Empathy is often seen as weakness or less-than-intelligent, and is looked upon with scorn by some. If people empathize, they might be considered weak and it means they actually have to care. Who wants to do that? It's inconvenient and uncomfortable. If people disassociate and intellectualize, etcetera, they don't have to care, hence they don't have guilt over doing nothing about the problem except judge others and complain. That's easy to do. So those who point fingers at people they think are taking the easy way out are actually doing the very thing they claim to loathe.

This is really true with many factors of the judgementalism of the right. And, of course, this will be considered to be an emotional argument, hence worthless because ... it's uncomfortable (to some.)
 
Jusst one quick point. I'm tired of the Republicans being called the rich, greedy fat cats and here's why: 8 of the 10 richest states per capita in the US voted for Kerry...yes, it looks like more rich people are Democrats than Republicans, and I totally believe it. Maybe more math is required to make that determination for sure, but it's 7am and I ain't doing it. This is my first post in this thread and I haven't even read it all yet...no time. So please knock it off and get your facts straight and stop listening to everything your favored party says just because they say it over and over again. I'm tired of the Democrats claiming to be high and mighty because they're so overly generous and helpful to the poor. Bullcrap, I give more to charity (Goodwill) than any Democrat I know, and that's a fact (limited sampling, I know.) This should help one of bustr's arguments, but hurt shesulsa, even though you're on the same team (sorry shesulsa, I still like you.)
 
shesulsa said:
Perhaps YOU could cite YOUR source this time.
Perhaps you could name an era in human civilization where human beings have lived better than in the industrialized nations produced by capitalism. That would be a good start.

shesulsa said:
The very fact that it is subjective does not change the fact that poverty is still poverty. Whether you want to admit it or not, poverty IS alive and well in America.
That's ludicrous. It's relative poverty. Meaning, if I make $50,000.00 a year, and I walk in to a room of millionaires, i'm 'poor', compared to them. Does that mean i'm absolutely poor, or merely relatively poor. The majority of poverty in America is relative poverty, meaning, again, that those we consider poor in America in particular, and the industrialized world in general, have a higher standard of living today than any humans living, in the history of the world.

Moreover, I'll deal, now, with Michael's assertion that people are getting 'poorer'. It's built on a distortion and a myopic view of history. All he's done is compare one year, to the next, and when the fluctuation happens to fall higher this year, he declares western civilization a wash. That is the most myopic view of human development imagineable.

Americans in 1983, 1985, 1992, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, etc, as a whole, live far better than any time in human history.
 
shesulsa said:
I completely agree - and I've typed on this before on another thread on poverty specifically. Poverty in America can't compare to poverty in Africa or Asia, this is a given. Poor people in America (those who can obtain food via food stamps and/or welfare, SSI) eat lots of starches and fats - fills you up, tastes good and cheap. If you look at the homeless population, however, which is a little closer to the poverty our grandparents witnessed (I remember our conversation over coffee), you will see a truer sample - thin, dirty, ill ....

However ...

Though we have wealth in America, we have a problem with appropriate spending and hoarding. An example of how trickle-down fails: my daughter collected donations for the battered women's shelter. The working-class neighborhood residents dug deep and gave as many items as they could - even bought some new items to donate (these were personal care/hygeine items), but the white-collar high-end neighborhood turned her away with rare exception. See, here's what I think - people will understand how important their actions are if they can relate to the problem. If they cannot relate to the problem, they must choose to either disassociate from the problem or empathize with it. Empathy is often seen as weakness or less-than-intelligent, and is looked upon with scorn by some. If people empathize, they might be considered weak and it means they actually have to care. Who wants to do that? It's inconvenient and uncomfortable. If people disassociate and intellectualize, etcetera, they don't have to care, hence they don't have guilt over doing nothing about the problem except judge others and complain. That's easy to do. So those who point fingers at people they think are taking the easy way out are actually doing the very thing they claim to loathe.

This is really true with many factors of the judgementalism of the right. And, of course, this will be considered to be an emotional argument, hence worthless because ... it's uncomfortable (to some.)
Is your argument that an intellectual approach to any problem is inferior to an emotional one? If that's the case, it might explain a lot. It appears with some people that having the right solution isn't nearly as important as 'caring enough'. I think we may have hit on an important seperation of ideological view points here. The greatest sin is, apparently, not having enough 'empathy'.
 
A peanut butter sandwich protest earns you a blackmark on your 'Permanent Record'. Except, that Permanent Record is held by the United States Department of Defense under the Republican Administration.

Is that the 1st Amendment of the Constitution I hear crumbling?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek/

A Pentagon memo obtained by NEWSWEEK shows that the deputy Defense secretary now acknowledges that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens and groups that never should have been retained. The number of reports with names of U.S. persons could be in the thousands, says a senior Pentagon official who asked not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.
 
sgtmac_46 said:
Americans in 1983, 1985, 1992, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, etc, as a whole, live far better than any time in human history.

On this, I would agree, however I often wonder if people think that this "endless" prosperity will last forever. History does not favor people who assumed that.

Also, I would like to point out that among our industrialized peers, we have the low life expectency. We have a high rate of infact mortality. We have far more sickness and disease. We have less housing. We have more hunger. And we have the most prisons per capita.

America is still a great country but we can do better...
 
upnorthkyosa said:
On this, I would agree, however I often wonder if people think that this "endless" prosperity will last forever. History does not favor people who assumed that.
Oh, I think some people are contemplating actions that will, if implemented as they want, bring it to an end very shortly.....all in the name of 'spreading the wealth'.

upnorthkyosa said:
Also, I would like to point out that among our industrialized peers, we have the low life expectency. We have a high rate of infact mortality. We have far more sickness and disease. We have less housing. We have more hunger. And we have the most prisons per capita.
As for infant moratality, there was an interesting study on that 'statistic' recently. The high rate of infant morality in the US is due, for the most part, to A) How we define a 'live birth' versus what European countries call a 'live birth' and the degree to which the US goes to save extremely premature children. Further more, the jump infant morality coincides with increased access to fertility drugs, which result in multiple births and low birth rates.

The insinuation that the increase in infant mortality is do, in some way, to a decrease in wealth, or increase in poverty, is not supported by the facts. What's more, even with the under-reporting in Europe, and the overreporting in the US, the infant mortality in the US in 2005 was 6.5 per 1,000, compared to 5.2 per 1,000 for the UK.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8179061&dopt=Abstract

This paper suggests that there may be international differences in reporting of very-low-birthweight infants and perinatal deaths and that such reporting differences bias comparisons of national perinatal and infant mortality rates. Efforts must be made to adopt standard conventions for the inclusion of small, early infants and fetal deaths in rate calculations.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/9/184540.shtml

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do not.
Switzerland, for instance, doesn't count the deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm, because they are not counted as live births

Moreover, it seems likely that this distortion of infant mortality is intentional on the part of nations not following WHO guidelines for reporting.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n24_v45/ai_14752862


As for more 'hunger'....more hunger than what? Europe? I seem to remember France burning recently, was that about unemployment and poverty? I seem to recall.

As for prisons, it's true our prison population is large, and has been growing for about 15 years......our crime rate has also been plummeting as a result for about 15 years, while some European nations are experiencing a rise in crime rates. You can't argue with success.

upnorthkyosa said:
America is still a great country but we can do better...
On that much we agree.....though we likely might have some issues on the method to improve it. We can continue to respectfully debate those here in this forum as we have been.
 
Don Roley said:
Well, it is important to note that when you talk about poverty in America you are talking about people who tend too get fat more than people with higher incomes. In my grandfather's time people starved to death. So I do happen to think that we are getting richer. And I think the comment about there never being so little poverty is a valid one when you take that into account. Americans, even the poorest ones, have things that people in other countries envy. We have so much wealth that we can reach into our pockets and help out those that have less than us.


When I think of the elderly in this country who decide on medicinces versus food, then I think of poverty. I bring this up because the Baby Boomers who have not saved (* not saying all did not save just some *), and have their incomes decreased in retirement will see a decrease in standard of living, and possible evne poverty by theirs or others definition.

Now what I find, odd in the "Old" bankruptcy courts and even among those we would consider to be a poverty level, they have Cable TV's and sometimes multiple reciever boxes. After my Divorce, when I was paying the Lawyer, and all the Debt I took to clear my name and try to get better credit, I ate PBJ, did not have Cable, or even a TV, I had gotten a cheap cell phone during the Divorce to call 911, and kepted it instead of a land line. Total less money out was my idea for the usage. I also would buy in bulk and cook things up and then eat the same thing for multiple nights in a week to two weeks. Yet, I never considered myself at poverty, for collecting cans to have a bonus night at Taco Bell. I choose where to spend my money, and I did. I also made enough that after that short period of my life I was able to recover quite fast. Yet, by many standards, I was at poverty, (* not income for sure *) because I did not have a TV or VCR or Cable, or a land line, drove an old car with 160,000+ miles. While others who made lots less than me still went out to eat, and still had cable.

By jumping in here late, I might have missed it, but has anyone tried to define Pverty for the discussion? I mean ar we looking at income levels only? Or are we looking at standard of living, or qaulity of life? How does one define or quantify Standard of living and Quality with no income levels? You break it down to what they have, how they eat and such.

My Parent and Grand Parents told me stories about the Depression and the rationing during WWII, and they had it good as they lived and worked on Farms. Yet today, my dad still does not like to eat Chicken, as it reminds him of being poor and only having the chickens your raised yourself. So as long as he has meatloaf, or a salad, or 5 bean soup, he does not consider himself badd off. Yet, on Chicken nights he is like what is wrong?

Perspective, and defining realtionships is what I see needs to be done.

One srguement states more people today then ever before are at poverty, and given the population of the USA and world I would have to agree with the absolute numbers with the definition of income being used today.

Although another arguement states that even those at poverty levels today have food to eat (* there are some yes, but the percentages are not like it was 100+ years ago *), and entertainment for themselves.

Now, not to derail what I have said, the Romans, had their Circuses to keep the people entertained. The French Monarchy, did not understand that many people could not eat, or did not have what they had. So, if today's politicians keep minimum food and entertainment in the homes, then the population is content enough not to revolt, yet desire more?
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top