After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with defaul

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Bob26003, Jan 3, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Heck the multi billionaires got what they wanted........... repubs job is done. What do they care if the country goes under now? So teachers and cops and firefighters and disabled and elderly will go hungry............. but so what right?

    They can live in their gated communities while society collapses.


    "Continuing these mega-refunds for the rich would be the single largest contributor to the deficit (Congressional Budget Office), adding more than $3.7 billion over the next decade."
    http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101202/LETTERS/101209975
    ******************

    Austan Goolsbee: Hitting Debt Ceiling Would Be 'First Default In History Caused Purely By Insanity'

    NEW HAVEN -- There are, it seems, only two major issues that have a set time frame for political brinkmanship between the White House and Congressional Republicans. The Bush tax cuts will make for an interesting election-year dynamic when they expire in two years. Well before that, however, the president will have to persuade GOP leadership to ignore Tea Party insistence and allow for the country's debt ceiling to be raised.

    That issue is set to come to a head this spring. So far the administration has been (or perhaps just expressed a sense of being) self-assured that the ceiling will be raised, but on Sunday its rhetoric was noticeably sharper.

    Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, laid out the fairly alarming implications of the United States defaulting on its obligations while asking the question: What type of insanity would persuade us to do this?

    "Well, look, it pains me that we would even be talking about this," he told co-host Jake Tapper. "This is not a game. You know, the debt ceiling is not something to toy with. If we hit the debt ceiling, that's essentially defaulting on our obligations, which is totally unprecedented in American history. The impact on the economy would be catastrophic. That would be a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008."

    "As I say that's not a game," Goolsbee went on. "I don't see why anybody's talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling. If we get to the point where you've damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity. There would be no reason for us to default other than that would be some kind of game. We shouldn't even be discussing that. People will get the wrong idea. The United States is not in danger of default. We do not have problems with that. This would be lumping us in with a series of countries throughout history that i don't think we would want to be lumped in with."

    The good news for Goolsbee and the president is that House GOP leadership does seem to see the deficit ceiling debate a bit differently than their incoming Tea Party brethren -- as does the intellectual establishment of the Republican Party, including George Will, who, following Goolsbee on ABC, criticized the idea of defaulting simply for symbolic reasons.

    UPDATE: It's worth noting, as CBS Radio Mark Knoller does, that "the Debt Ceiling now stands at $14.294-trillion. The National Debt is now $423-billion away at $13.871-trillion and rising."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/02/austan-goolsbee-debt-ceiling_n_803307.html

    ***************

    Heck the multi billionaires got what they wanted........... repubs job is done. What do they care if the country goes under now? So teachers and cops and firefighters and disabled and elderly will go hungry............. but so what right?
     
  2. ~Young-Violet~

    ~Young-Violet~ Banned Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    Who cares, I just think it's all fu*k with them money spenders eh. Haha
     
  3. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    I say we take the richest one percent of the country's population, and divide all of their money between the poorest 25%...:rolleyes:
     
  4. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    See, I like Canada's idea: You have how much money? OH! Well well! We'll just increase the percentage of money you give us in the income tax!
     
  5. Youth

    Youth Active Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    Incredible! If I were a selfish person than I'd say they can go ahead and keep their money. But the reality of it is that rich people own five and six houses while good people and children are left homeless and receiving poor educations. The economy will suffer as long as America is giving the rich class tax cuts. I do not envy them at all, but they are making our young generation pay for their ignorance. It isn't intelligence that separates the rich from the poor. It's money, period! Here's a quick fact: The ACT/SAT scores are positively correlated with income. The higher the income the higher the score. Talk about BS!

    Sorry for ranting on your post. But, I completely side with you.
    We need to do something about this.
     
  6. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    Business as usual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  7. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    It's inexcusable in a time of fiscal austerity and economic malaise that we would sooner put schools and infrastructure, which are already in bad shape, on the chopping block before raising taxes on the wealthy.
     
  8. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    It isn't intelligence that separates the rich from the poor. It's money, period! Here's a quick fact: The ACT/SAT scores are positively correlated with income. The higher the income the higher the score. Talk about BS!

    But you can also read that the opposite way around. The higher your intelligence level, the more earning power thus the more money .... and in terms of children, a higher genetic likelihood of high intelligence.

    Or to put it the other way, stupid person can't make high income... marries other stupid person - child genetically picks up both stupid genes. Stupid leads to being poor rather than poor leads to being stupid but then a vicious cycle of poverty is started with genetics thrown in the mix... Intelligent leads to being rich rather than rich leads to being intelligent.... and then the added bonus of having intelligent parents (and parenting) and inherited genes perpetuates a virtuous cycle.

    Oh enough posting! I have things to do, I suppose - even if it is freezing cold.
     
  9. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    Why should evolution matter? Think of the children!!!!!@!!
     
  10. Youth

    Youth Active Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    To you and siding with Mike:

    The issue in this whole predicament is that to assume that all poor children are not intelligent is to make a hasty biased generalization. That's like saying that all Black people are good at basketball OR that all children with ausperger's syndrome cannot make contributions to society OR that all Europeans believe in colonization. It's just not fair, (or at least that's what I think). I know a lot of low-income individuals who are brilliant. However, because of their lackluster educations they have been robbed of resources. I'll quote Fyodor Dostoyevski to fill this out for you in an "intellect's" point-of-view. In "Notes from the Underground" he wrote that:
    "...it might even be true that the Crystal Palace is a hoax, that the laws of nature do not provide for it, and that I invented it all simply on account of my own stupidity, and on the account of certain outdated irrational habits of our generation."
    The "Crystal Palace" is these gigantic houses we think we need, the 200mph sports cars, the trillion dollar wars we fund. "I" is the capitalist mindset that makes the "Crystal Palace". The capitalist is basically a "hoax" because it's not possible to truly care for life and have all these excesses.
    Phew! I got a little carried away. I'm open to hear your argument as well though.
     
  11. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    Speaking of Texas

    This is the kind of sillyness that truly makes texas stand out.

    ***********

    36 states to dump nuclear waste close to Texas aquifer?

    the landfill is close to a major aquifer that provides water to one-quarter of the country’s irrigated land as well as drinking water to thousands of people.

    Commission Lets 36 States Dump Nuke Waste In Texas, NPR, by The Associated Presstext HOUSTON January 4, 2011, Texas commission approved rules on Tuesday that paves the way for 36 states to export low-level radioactive waste to a remote landfill along the Texas-New Mexico border.

    http://nuclear-news.net/2011/01/06/36-states-to-dump-nuclear-waste-close-to-texas-aquifer/

    Radioactive Waste Dump over Ogallala Aquifer?
    Six years later, Waste Control still doesn't know if its radioactive waste dump sits on Ogallala Aquifer

    http://www.texasobserver.org/forrestforthetrees/radioactive-waste-dump-over-ogallala-aquifer

    **********

    now this aquifer provides roughly one third of the US irrigation water..

    and yes, this is the work of republicans..........

    Goooooooooooo conservatives!!!!!!!!!!

    wont be happy till the US is a wasteland
     
  12. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    and no,,,,,,,,,,, it is not evolutionary natural selection that leads to a few being very very rich and many many being poor.

    one word: Circumstance
    ..........

    Also, Human society is not the natural world. We shape the environment we live in to extents that no other species is even close to.

    can you imagine Bill Gates being a hunter gatherer ? I cant....... He would be dead.

    Therefore, he is very definately a winner of Warren Buffet calls the ovarian lottery.

    Being born in the right place at the right time from the right parents.........

    Here just listen to Buffet for yourself:

    The luck of the draw
    But if you’d like some other kind of wisdom from Buffett, here’s a scenario that he often describes in speeches and interviews. (We’ve now moved into the “life lesson” part of this show.)

    It’s 24 hours before your birth, and a genie appears to you. He tells you that you can set the rules for the world you’re about to enter — economic, social, political — the whole enchilada. Sounds great, right? What’s the catch?

    Before you enter the world, you will pick one ball from a barrel of 6.8 billion (the number of people on the planet). That ball will determine your gender, race, nationality, natural abilities, and health — whether you are born rich or poor, sick or able-bodied, brilliant or below average, American or Zimbabwean.

    This is what Buffett calls the ovarian lottery. As he explained to a group of University of Florida students, “You’re going to get one ball out of there, and that is the most important thing that’s ever going to happen to you in your life.”

    According to the world’s third-richest man, that’s a good perspective to have when setting the rules for our world. We should be designing a society that, as Buffett says, “doesn’t leave behind someone who accidentally got the wrong ball and is not well-wired for this particular system.” He points out that he is designed for the American system — and he was lucky to be born into it. He can allocate capital, and he lives in a place and at a time when those skills are well rewarded. (His pal Bill Gates is quick to point out that if Buffett had been born in an earlier time, he’d be some animal’s lunch because the Oracle of Omaha can’t run fast or climb trees.)

    When Buffett talks about this lottery, he often concludes by asking:

    If you could put your ball back, and they took out, at random, a hundred other balls, and you had to pick one of those, would you put your ball back in? Now, of those hundred balls … roughly five of them will be American. … Half of them are going to be below-average intelligence, half will be above. Do you want to put your ball back? Most of you, I think, will not. … What you’re saying is, “I’m in the luckiest 1% of the world right now.”

    http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2010/03/31/warren-buffett-on-the-lottery-of-birth/

    *******************************


    So Mike are you honestly saying that there are NO geniuses in Africa? Are you honestly saying that every rich person is smarter? Get Real

    that is authoritarian, childish, primal reptilian brained thinking.

    It is also the opposite of what Jesus preached.

    Empathy is a key characteristic of higher intelligence.
     
  13. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    that to assume that all poor children are not intelligent is to make a hasty biased generalization.

    I didn't think I was saying that. I thought I was saying that their parents were unintelligent (or if you want to put it the Warren Buffett way - badly-adapted to the current circumstances).

    Then the child probably has a. a greater likelihood of inheriting badly-adapted to the circumstances genes and b. does not have good role models to show an effective or positive way of coping with the current circumstances they find themselves in --- both of which would set them back BUT if the child happens to BE intelligent (or well-adapted to the circumstances) then that child has the capacity to succeed and will become rich or at least, much richer than his or her parents.

    Equally if you have rich and intelligent parents but you are stupid/have badly-adapted genes you also have every chance of becoming poor despite your relatively good start in life. You may turn to drink or gambling or simply be unable to hold down any sort of job or have no financial sense or capability.

    I think where circumstances come into play --- is with the child of average intelligence. Clearly, if you are of average intelligence but are parented by intelligent and pro-active parents then you have a far better chance of enhancing your abilities and growing your knowledge than if you are parented by stupid parents who cannot or will not support and aid your intellectual growth and will effectively stunt it. Then THOSE two children who may have been identical at birth in intelligence or intellectual abilities may have significantly different outcomes by the time they are fourteen or fifteen.

    The one who has been nurtured in an academic, intellectual, caring environment might well seem to be streets ahead of the child who was never supported and actively discouraged to develop any academic faculties or achievements.

    I think that was what I was trying to say. That stupidity or lack of capability produces the poverty and intelligence or the capability to flourish within your current circumstances produces the wealth NOT the other way around.

    Of course, there are many circumstances which upset that balance. Becoming a refugee (like Einstein, for example) often puts families into great poverty regardless of their innate intelligence because they generally in a situation where a majority of factors such as lack of language of the host country; or having to start from scratch with no family support; or any of those typical things will push them right to the bottom of the poverty barrel --- BUT then again, if they are intelligent or have skills from their earlier life, they may well be able to regain their status in a fairly short amount of time.

    There are numerous stories of Eastern Europeans and German Jews fleeing to London, literally leaving every last thing behind them except the clothes on their backs and within ten or fifteen years owning a huge hotel, running a great business and so on and so forth....

    I don't know why I am going on about it. But I simply think, the issue although complex - is the other way around to the way that you put it.... it is not poverty that makes you stupid, it is stupidity that makes you poor.

    Although I will admit that if you are neither particularly stupid or particularly bright - just average you may be hindered by being born into a poor family and helped by being born into a rich one.... so once the poverty or wealth has been established then there are other factors, such as expectations and opportunities, that come into play for the child but I still feel that in this day and age poverty is often a consequence of stupidity and wealth often a consequence of intelligence (or the ability to react well to ones current circumstances) rather than the other way around as suggested by the original quote.

    Have I just repeated myself ad infinitum? Anyway, never mind.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2011
  14. Youth

    Youth Active Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    I just don't buy the idea of average intelligence plus poor equals failure AND average intelligence plus rich equals moderate (or usually wealthy) success. Good learning resources should be available to everybody and they most certainly are not! The point is that a person is no smarter than an animal if the person thinks that "Oh! He's stupid and poor, so let's let them rot." That's barbaric. If an animal dies it is usually because of genetic disadvantages. I believe that very few (under one percent) of all humans are disadvantaged genetically. Every person has "something" to contribute. We are not just animals. We have these gigantic brains. Seriously, our brains are the only brains large enough to either help the world flourish or make it perish. Why are we not helping it flourish? Because, our rich people are sucking up all the goods and killing every damn thing they see. That's not intelligence. That's barbaric. It's completely animal. However, if they were "intelligent" enough to realize that they are, indeed, sucking up all the futures resources than they would no longer just be animals. They'll prove themselves as humans.
    Basically, when the rich dingbats who rule over countries begin to see this they'll know. A poor "unintelligent" person does not spend trillions of dollars to blow stuff up. They simply live of what is allotted to them. If they need to protect their village they'll put together a bow-and-arrow or something. Hence, the rich person is in fact the "dummy" that the poor person is supposed to be, because the poor person isn't destroying the world. The rich person is.
     
  15. A1231988

    A1231988 Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    ITT: Republicans that have no idea how genetics works.
     
  16. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    Im not going to read too much into the genetics, I'm not a doctor and have never read into just how much parentage effects intelligence. (I'm not going to claim or a second it doesn't but I'm too ignorant of the subject matter.


    However, intelligence or no, being born into certain "working class" backgrounds will hinder you in life. It could be the pressure to become involved with gang culture, lack of support emotional or educational matters in the home which while I'm sure some would argue occurs in "middle class" homes or simply not having the funding to be sent to better educational establishments will hurt your chances.

    This will make me sound resentful perhaps but I'm not, I'll deal the hand I'm dealt, me and my sister primary with the same SATS scores and the same predicted grades top of our class but went to differnt schools. I attended the local "working class" school and my sister travelled too the next town to study at the more prestigious CoE School. She avaerged A's all through and I averaged C's. Go figure that one.
     
  17. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    Good learning resources should be available to everybody and they most certainly are not!
    Even when they are - lets take a great school for example - some are still going to flourish and others be at the bottom of the class... despite having the same teachers, attending exactly the same classes and so on. That's life, it is not fair, there is suffering, people have different capabilities. It is not yet paradise on earth here. No matter how much you may wish it, some will still be more beautiful, some more intelligent, some faster, and the converse.

    The point is that a person is no smarter than an animal if the person thinks that "Oh! He's stupid and poor, so let's let them rot."
    Well I wasn't aware that anyone was saying that. There is a welfare state in most first world countries, plus free education and health care (excepting the US) - who is letting them rot. And what do you mean by rot, anyway? Live in a warm house, with food and running water but not have a job - or what?

    Every person has "something" to contribute.

    What exactly is stopping that contribution? The rich? I don't see that at all. You may dislike the rich but their businesses are creating jobs not denying them, I would have said. Lets compare the US with Haiti for example --- America is one of the richest countries in the world, there is a high standard of living, technical capabilities beyond most imagining, children that are born with 'holes in their heart' or four months premature are saved and go on to live healthy lives... People can have a roof over their head and access to education and clean water and jobs. Is that not helping a country flourish? Would you prefer to live with no electricity, no hospitals, no security, no infrastructure as in Haiti? Which (by the way) became independent at roughly the same time as America.

    Because, our rich people are sucking up all the goods and killing every damn thing they see. That's not intelligence. That's barbaric.
    Well, I guess that depends on your point of view. I am not against an austere life but I think barbaric is when a woman has a one in four chance of dying in childbirth because there are no hospitals, when a child has a life expectancy of 15 because the water is full of bacteria or they don't have the technology to drill wells to access it.

    It's completely animal. What is?

    However, if they were "intelligent" enough to realize that they are, indeed, sucking up all the futures resources than they would no longer just be animals. They'll prove themselves as humans.
    I just couldn't agree less. They are creating resources. Why do you have tarmac on your roads, why do you have a car to drive, why do you have a computer to work at, why do you have electricity to run it, why do you have a light to see it by. Did you create/invent all that yourself in your short life-span? No. You relied on all those who were "intelligent" enough to realize that they could make life better by utilising their intelligence and the natural resources around them, rather than just saying or we will just accept what is allotted to us and not try to change anything....

    Basically, when the rich dingbats who rule over countries begin to see this they'll know. A poor "unintelligent" person does not spend trillions of dollars to blow stuff up. They simply live of what is allotted to them.

    He doesn't have the option to spend trillions of dollars but give him that option and I can almost guarantee that he will. If, as you imply, they are simply choosing not to try to better their circumstances and as that is their choice - and you agree with it - who then is actually in favour of letting them rot?

    If they need to protect their village they'll put together a bow-and-arrow or something.
    Which is going to do them a fat lot of good against a Kalashnikov but they will be one up on the village that hasn't even bothered to create the bow and arrow yet.

    Hence, the rich person is in fact the "dummy" that the poor person is supposed to be, because the poor person isn't destroying the world. The rich person is.


    Well, you go and enjoy your utopian poverty - if that is really what you want then give it all up. Go and live with no clean water, no sanitation or toilet system, no metal implements to kill animals or cut (because ya know, you don't want to rob Mother Earth of her precious minerals by evil, destructive mining and so on). Knock yourself out!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2011
  18. Youth

    Youth Active Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    You are saying "utopian poverty" and looking at this only from a clearly myopic state of thinking. You are suggesting that the people who take over for the rich people in power are still going to be stupid! Which is absolutely NO! All humans are not stupid & barbaric okay? Trillions of dollars are put into these wars. It's as simple as taking those trillions of dollars and putting it into something that will help close the gap between the rich and poor schools. People buy million dollar cars, which does not in any way help anyone achieve anything! These are two examples of excess spending by rich idiots who do not care about anything. You write about the "Kalashinikov" or whatever it is - a rifle. (Well, guess what? Africans, Native Americans and so-called "underdeveloped countries" did not introduce these rifles to civilization. Us nonsensical Europeans did, okay?) You say that: It is not yet paradise on earth here. No matter how much you may wish it, some will still be more beautiful, some more intelligent, some faster, and the converse. My response is that you are accepting an uncivilized human condition. You say that my idea is "paradise on earth." Well, why would a human being want to accept anything else but paradise? I know why. Because that particular human in charge is stupid and just accepts evolution as it is. All people are not like that. That is just those rich people who think. They want civilization to remain barbaric. You say that "He doesn't have the option to spend trillions of dollars but give him that option and I can almost guarantee that he will." Nope-wrong, wrong, wrong! Only rich people think that way. They think that everybody is as barbaric and rapacious as them, but that is not true. I'm am not cynical. I know that there are people around who are positive and believe in the human condition as a gift. And I also know that rich train rich kids to think "Oh! So, in order to make it as a human in this world I have to waste my money on atomic bombs."
    Basically, if intelligent people had control of every government across the world than we would not spend trillions of dollars on dumb wars - we would spend 0. The reason stupid people fund these wars, and buy $60 million dollar houses, and cars, and etc. is because they are stupid and cynical. And for some reason, they think that everybody thinks like them. They think that all humans are stupid like them and want to take them over. So, they keep building and building bombs and stuff. That is how we know for fact that the world is not run it's smartest beings. It is run by absolute morons. You say that the rich are creating jobs - not by buying huge houses they are not, not by owning a ton of land they not, not by spending on war they are not. Do you get what I mean?
    Lastly, I want to let you know that excess spending is only a result of idiotic thinking and extravagant living. We need smart people in charge of every country in the world, but the rich people are the only one's in the world who are in charge. They are the only one's who can afford these "vacations." If less-developed countries were the whole world than the world will maintain. Well, guess what? Only an advanced society of smart people can, in fact, prolong it! Therefore, rich people are not the smartest and fastest - they are far from it. And locating smart people is more complicated than you think. It's not about income. It's about being genetically-embedded with the world's well-being as your logical compass.
    PS: I understand what you are saying, but it's cynical to think that all humans are like that. Only rich people want you to think that way.
     
  19. chjones21

    chjones21 Well-Known Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    Well, why would a human being want to accept anything else but paradise? I know why. Because that particular human in charge is stupid and just accepts evolution as it is. All people are not like that. That is just those rich people who think. They want civilization to remain barbaric.

    Generally, I find that the people who think like you are the MOST dangerous. Lets take all those utopian Communist ideals (which your post resembles in many ways) and see how they worked out in practice, shall we?

    Just because you wish that everyone would be altruistic and work for the common good - or to use a well known phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". How wonderful, how perfect and YET

    ...how unaware of actual reality and human nature.

    I don't wish to break your bubble or force you into seeing anything in a cynical light but utopias have been tried and they don't work. Even at the barrel of a gun - they don't work. Look at Soviet Russia, have a little look at history. Haiti is another example of a state that was a freed state of previous slaves - where the ideals (back in the 18th Century) of enlightenment and human dignity were all going to flourish from this paradise, this "pearl of the Antilles" which was previously France's most profitable island, making up over 40% of its total colonial income (from that one island). And with these wonderful, new, semi-socialist Enlightenment ideals, working against the ideas of land-ownership and capitalism ... what emerged? Exactly. A nation corrupt to the core, with land erosion, complete devastation, political instability and rampant violence.

    I am sorry to be the nasty person who brings you down to earth but societies work as a reflection of human nature - yes, we can be altruistic and we are extremely co-operative .... something as simple as a sky-scraper, how many people does that take, working in consort from those that create the glass, to those that mine the iron, to those that design it or those that build it and those that engineer all the technical specifications and that isn't even the half of it ... and they go up - day after day after day in cities all over the world. A simple everyday building which is in fact an enormous testament to the cooperative nature and abilities of humans. But people will not be motivated purely for the cooperative good --- and we know that! Washing machines in Russia which had to be output to quota - but no-one could lose their job because the state essentially ensured it, and what happened they looked perfect but the knobs were glued on, the mechanical parts were missing or unconnected ---- and slowly but surely, the entire economy ground to a halt.

    People starving, rations from a country with enough to feed itself ten times over!

    You say I don't see human nature right and I am cynical but I would say the same of you - even down to the cynical part because you can't appreciate what is already out there and available for you.

    Still you complain and say "the rich are creating jobs - not by buying huge houses they are not, not by owning a ton of land they not, not by spending on war they are not. Do you get what I mean?"

    Well, by buying that house or building it, they ARE creating jobs - and certainly in the UK one of our biggest employers is BAe, British Aerospace which is involved in all sorts of arms manufacturing. Do you get what I mean?

    I don't say it is necessarily a good thing to be producing weapons but it does produce a lot of technical advancements as well as jobs and wealth in this particular country (the UK).

    I think it is nice that you think putting clever, good people in charge will make the world a better place. I think it will just mean that either - they run their country into the ground and a worser, more maverick Stalin-type will seek his success on the wave of resentment created by poverty and economic failure or they will be invaded and/or assassinated. You may call me cynical but history is relatively clear on this point.

    Utopias do not exist here. Those that wish to force them into existence (even with the best of intentions) - always have to do so by the barrel of a gun. And it always, always goes down from there ---- it starts off with "the reason this isn't working is because of a few People who are not doing what they should, not partaking fully, ruining our great dream for all the rest --- so what to do with those? Clearly, only one solution (for the greater good of course) is to get rid of them, cut out the dead wood so the great new society can flourish...

    ... and depending on your point of view, that is either the rich, aristocrats in France (off with their heads! Bravo! Liberty, Fraternity, Equality!), or the racially impure, the weak link, the non-Aryan who are ruining the purity and perfection of the world (Seig Heil - Ugh, shudder) or those pesky middle classes, those traitors to the working class, those bourgeousie or the kulaks --- they have to go, don't they?

    NO. For me, I prefer our dystopian reality --- with its imperfect laws and imperfect people all trying our best to get along with all our imperfections. Give me an imperfect place to live. You go and try your utopia --- just don't drag me into it, by the barrel of gun or otherwise!
     
  20. Youth

    Youth Active Member

    Re: After giving multi trillion dollar tax break to richest 1%, cons threaten with de

    "even down to the cynical part because you can't appreciate what is already out there and available for you. "

    This is directed towards me. Honestly, I have enough resources and that is fair for me. I wrote that at the beginning of this post, the rich can have their money. The point that I am trying to make is that the bigger picture is beyond me. I know that a vast majority of the politicians are dumb and brought up by wealthy families. Wealthy families are not indisputably intelligent. Whoever brings their land to fruition is the intelligent one.

    "you think putting clever, good people in charge will make the world a better place. I think it will just mean that either - they run their country into the ground and a worser, more maverick Stalin-type will seek his success on the wave of resentment created by poverty and economic failure or they will be invaded and/or assassinated. You may call me cynical but history is relatively clear on this point."

    You say here that I am talking about "clever, good people". Nope. I said that intelligent people should be on top of any political deal going on in the world. Clever and intelligent are close terms, but I'd keep this debate where it is - intelligence. And besides, I never said that Stalin was intelligent. What gave you that idea? Yes, he was clever. But, I've never promoted any kind of impure purge-effort or the like. I don't believe in militant action against others. To me it's completely barbaric and inefficient dollarwise.

    "by buying that house or building it, they ARE creating jobs"

    Okay. But, why should it cost a million dollars? Who deserves a million times more luxury than the next person? Somebody could get educated with that left over money. Basically, you say one person is deserving of absolute luxury while another person, in poverty of course, is deserving of scarcity. All people (99%) want to contribute to there societies in some positive way. Therefore, each person is worth the resources to live. I'm sorry but I do not think people are truly that much more gifted than people...to the point where one family is rich with gold and leather handbags and another family is poor, homeless, famished.

    "Those that wish to force them into existence (even with the best of intentions) - always have to do so by the barrel of a gun."

    Once again, who developed these weapons? It certainly was not those who were in poverty. Remember that this was about intelligence. You said that intelligence was a rich thing. I am no geneticist, but right now I see that the world is run by idiots who are from well-off families. These well-off families build weapons and purchase $5 million homes. An intelligent person is cognizant that these advanced weapons are only meaningful to a civilization that cannot function without force. Right now civilization is owned by these politicians.
    Whether a politician is capitalist or socialist (usually it's somewhere between that) they have to be smart in order to run an efficient economy. That means that war has to be abolished.
    If the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were avoided than that's one billion, no wait a minute? a trillion dollars! extra that America has to it's fiscal credit. A trillion dollars is a lot of money. How many impoverished families can you give resources with that money? Hmmm... (And I am not talking about cars, nice clothes, and Gucci & whatnot. I am talking about education, period!)
    So, back to intelligence. Do you still agree that rich people are the only one's who are deserving of these refined educations? Do you think that a really smart person in a disadvantageous background should be withheld from a better education? Trust me, it's takes someone who is a genius to overcome severe poverty. But, any idiot with parents can live in lavish luxury for life, simply because of their parent's wealth.
    To solve economic issues you educate people who in poverty so that they can give you fresh intellect to build from. It's that simple. You do not limit good educations to rich folk.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.