Fixing Inequality

[IlarMeilyr]

Here is (I think) the complete long version:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVKDgEyvFU8]Milton Friedman on Donahue - 1980 (First Appearance) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Brain357]

Income inequality appears to coexist in some tragically impoverished lands, thus we MUST logically conclude that income inequality is the bad thing that CAUSES poverty. Right?

Even STATING the "argument" should alert the person expressing the "thought" that he or she is utilizing a fallacy.

The RABBI has clearly pointed this out, here, a few times.

But it has been done pretty eloquently in the past, too.

One of my favorites requires some repetition.

LISTEN to Mr. Donahue stating the traditional liberal premise and THEN hear what Mr. Friedman had to say:

Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

well?

SNIP:



by Peter Morici 15 Jan 2014 50 post a comment

Inequality is replacing the American dream, because the U.S. economy--thanks to Washington’s mismanagement--is underperforming.

America still produces one fifth of the world’s goods and services, but accounts for a much smaller share of global growth. Many U.S. products are no longer the best in class. Consequently, the economy can’t adequately employ many of its college graduates, and wages are stagnant or falling for ordinary folks.

America still has great strengths. High labor productivity, coupled with rising wages in Asia, makes American workers a good value for global investors. There is cheaper energy, thanks to the onshore oil boom, that should attract new factories, but the promised flood of new jobs has only been a trickle.

To put it simply, the bureaucratic quagmire created by complex and ineffective business regulations makes it easier to produce in Asia than in America. The highest corporate tax rates among major industrialized countries make the cost of investing here too high.

It is increasingly difficult to refine and efficiently move oil to California and the Northeast--gasoline costs too much in Monterrey as does heating oil in Massachusetts.

ALL of it here

Well said... The slide from liberalism, to progressivism, to socialism has, as it always does, undermined US productivity, initiative and motivation.

Every time I hear a liberal braying about 'Jobs being shipped overseas', I remind them that it was their idea to drive up the cost of doing business, beyond the point where it cost less to move an entire operation overseas than to simply stay here.

They of course deny that they had any hand in it, then I go down the list of federal regulations for which they have most recently advocated. The best hot button is 'unemployment "Insurance"' most recently.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Income inequality appears to coexist in some tragically impoverished lands, thus we MUST logically conclude that income inequality is the bad thing that CAUSES poverty. Right?

Even STATING the "argument" should alert the person expressing the "thought" that he or she is utilizing a fallacy.

The RABBI has clearly pointed this out, here, a few times.

But it has been done pretty eloquently in the past, too.

One of my favorites requires some repetition.

LISTEN to Mr. Donahue stating the traditional liberal premise and THEN hear what Mr. Friedman had to say:

Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

Is that the one where Friedman points out the hypocrisy of demanding that they're entitled to other people's property, complaining that there's something nefarious in people claiming that their entitled to keep their own property?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Income inequality appears to coexist in some tragically impoverished lands, thus we MUST logically conclude that income inequality is the bad thing that CAUSES poverty. Right?

Even STATING the "argument" should alert the person expressing the "thought" that he or she is utilizing a fallacy.

The RABBI has clearly pointed this out, here, a few times.

But it has been done pretty eloquently in the past, too.

One of my favorites requires some repetition.

LISTEN to Mr. Donahue stating the traditional liberal premise and THEN hear what Mr. Friedman had to say:

Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

LOL. What does the Milton Freidman reply to the Donhue question (which itself was PREMISED on concern with income inequality) have to do with the topic of income inequality?

You guys are amazing. Not very bright or persuasive, but amazingly funny.

The liberal premise which invokes 'concerns' about "income inequality" is ALL part and parcel of the utopian socialist (leftist/liberal/progressive) call for the abolition of capitalism. You folks relentlessly challenge the underpinnings of capitalism. You actually WANT others to buy into the ridiculous notion that because SOME people make a significant amount of money and have acquired significant wealth, anybody making less or having little wealth is somehow a "victim" of the richer folks.

This is shy you use such cheap as rhetorical devices as 1% vs 99%. You are class warfare hacks. Divide and conquer. Us vs. them. Damn but you folks are stale.

You are transparent hacks and the time has come (it's in fact long past due) to expose you and your "premises" at every turn.

MOST of you decline to admit your actual agenda. SOME of you are such sheep, you don't even grasp what it is you are saying.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Income inequality appears to coexist in some tragically impoverished lands, thus we MUST logically conclude that income inequality is the bad thing that CAUSES poverty. Right?

Even STATING the "argument" should alert the person expressing the "thought" that he or she is utilizing a fallacy.

The RABBI has clearly pointed this out, here, a few times.

But it has been done pretty eloquently in the past, too.

One of my favorites requires some repetition.

LISTEN to Mr. Donahue stating the traditional liberal premise and THEN hear what Mr. Friedman had to say:

Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

Your usage of the word inequality is bizarre.

You seem to be trying to separate economic inequality from the inequity of discipline and effort which provided for the respective stations, not to mention the time that the respective parties have spent in pursuit of what they 'have' at their current station, along with the thousands of other, often incomparable variables.

There's no cure or fix for the problem...

All that humanity will ever be able to do is to promote the highest probability for the highest volume of people to fullfill their own ambitions. And as Friedman points out in the citation above, Capitalism and individual liberty is the best way to promote the highest probability for success, for the most people.

Socialism in any of its innumerable facets, runs counter to that goal. In truth, the deeper that the culture buys into socialism, the greater the economic disparity AND the higher the volume of people on the low end and the fewer on the high end.

 

[Brain357]

Income inequality appears to coexist in some tragically impoverished lands, thus we MUST logically conclude that income inequality is the bad thing that CAUSES poverty. Right?

Even STATING the "argument" should alert the person expressing the "thought" that he or she is utilizing a fallacy.

The RABBI has clearly pointed this out, here, a few times.

But it has been done pretty eloquently in the past, too.

One of my favorites requires some repetition.

LISTEN to Mr. Donahue stating the traditional liberal premise and THEN hear what Mr. Friedman had to say:

Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

LOL. What does the Milton Freidman reply to the Donhue question (which itself was PREMISED on concern with income inequality) have to do with the topic of income inequality?

You guys are amazing. Not very bright or persuasive, but amazingly funny.

The liberal premise which invokes 'concerns' about "income inequality" is ALL part and parcel of the utopian socialist (leftist/liberal/progressive) call for the abolition of capitalism. You folks relentlessly challenge the underpinnings of capitalism. You actually WANT others to buy into the ridiculous notion that because SOME people make a significant amount of money and have acquired significant wealth, anybody making less or having little wealth is somehow a "victim" of the richer folks.

This is shy you use such cheap as rhetorical devices as 1% vs 99%. You are class warfare hacks. Divide and conquer. Us vs. them. Damn but you folks are stale.

You are transparent hacks and the time has come (it's in fact long past due) to expose you and your "premises" at every turn.

MOST of you decline to admit your actual agenda. SOME of you are such sheep, you don't even grasp what it is you are saying.

Who has said they want an abolition of capitalism? I haven't heard anyone say that. I love how your only defense is always saying everyone wants to be communists. Nobody is saying that. We have capitalism, but it is crony capitalism and we need to fix it.

 

[Brain357]

Income inequality appears to coexist in some tragically impoverished lands, thus we MUST logically conclude that income inequality is the bad thing that CAUSES poverty. Right?

Even STATING the "argument" should alert the person expressing the "thought" that he or she is utilizing a fallacy.

The RABBI has clearly pointed this out, here, a few times.

But it has been done pretty eloquently in the past, too.

One of my favorites requires some repetition.

LISTEN to Mr. Donahue stating the traditional liberal premise and THEN hear what Mr. Friedman had to say:

Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

Your usage of the word inequality is bizarre.

You seem to be trying to separate economic inequality from the inequity of discipline and effort which provided for the respective stations, not to mention the time that the respective parties have spent in pursuit of what they 'have' at their current station, along with the thousands of other, often incomparable variables.

There's no cure or fix for the problem...

All that humanity will ever be able to do is to promote the highest probability for the highest volume of people to fullfill their own ambitions. And as Friedman points out in the citation above, Capitalism and individual liberty is the best way to promote the highest probability for success, for the most people.

Socialism in any of its innumerable facets, runs counter to that goal. In truth, the deeper that the culture buys into socialism, the greater the economic disparity AND the higher the volume of people on the low end and the fewer on the high end.

When did I say we should go to socialism? Oh I didn't did I? Stop just babbling whatever you want and make some worthwhile points. Go start a topic of capitalism vs socialism you'd make more sense there.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

LOL. What does the Milton Freidman reply to the Donhue question (which itself was PREMISED on concern with income inequality) have to do with the topic of income inequality?

You guys are amazing. Not very bright or persuasive, but amazingly funny.

The liberal premise which invokes 'concerns' about "income inequality" is ALL part and parcel of the utopian socialist (leftist/liberal/progressive) call for the abolition of capitalism. You folks relentlessly challenge the underpinnings of capitalism. You actually WANT others to buy into the ridiculous notion that because SOME people make a significant amount of money and have acquired significant wealth, anybody making less or having little wealth is somehow a "victim" of the richer folks.

This is shy you use such cheap as rhetorical devices as 1% vs 99%. You are class warfare hacks. Divide and conquer. Us vs. them. Damn but you folks are stale.

You are transparent hacks and the time has come (it's in fact long past due) to expose you and your "premises" at every turn.

MOST of you decline to admit your actual agenda. SOME of you are such sheep, you don't even grasp what it is you are saying.

Who has said they want an abolition of capitalism? I haven't heard anyone say that. I love how your only defense is always saying everyone wants to be communists. Nobody is saying that. We have capitalism, but it is crony capitalism and we need to fix it.

Socialism is axiomatically designed to destroy capitalism. They are diametrically opposing perspectives. Capitalism works because it appeals to and exploits humanities strengths and socialism fails because it appeals to and exploits humanities weaknesses.


When capitalism is combined with socialism, you don't get stronger capitalism, you get stronger socialism, OKA: Progressivism, AKA: Fascism.

That tells you all an objective observer should need to know. Human strengths are HARDER to cultivate, thus there is a finite value of what, in terms of 'strengths', any culture can draw from its citizenry, while weakness stays consistently available in abundance.

Meaning that the strengths are more valuable. But they're worth it and that is demonstrated in the results that come almost instantly, when they are applied.


Nations never grow stronger through the application of socialism, they crumble.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

Your usage of the word inequality is bizarre.

You seem to be trying to separate economic inequality from the inequity of discipline and effort which provided for the respective stations, not to mention the time that the respective parties have spent in pursuit of what they 'have' at their current station, along with the thousands of other, often incomparable variables.

There's no cure or fix for the problem...

All that humanity will ever be able to do is to promote the highest probability for the highest volume of people to fullfill their own ambitions. And as Friedman points out in the citation above, Capitalism and individual liberty is the best way to promote the highest probability for success, for the most people.

Socialism in any of its innumerable facets, runs counter to that goal. In truth, the deeper that the culture buys into socialism, the greater the economic disparity AND the higher the volume of people on the low end and the fewer on the high end.

When did I say we should go to socialism? Oh I didn't did I? Stop just babbling whatever you want and make some worthwhile points. Go start a topic of capitalism vs socialism you'd make more sense there.

Your point implies it. The verbiage is classic socialist boilerplate. Absent the appeal to socialism, the point does not exist, with one exception.

The exception being that you're a child. If you're a child then you may not have been exposed to sufficient time to allow your brain to develop into a mind, which may not have yet considered the information relevant to the issue, thus would be ignorant of the very basic truths to which I exposed you above.

So if you're a child, your welcome for the information, I hope it serves you well.

If you're not a child, then, well, you're just a common, garden variety liar.

Crony Capitalism stems from a rationalization, through which the ideological left seeks to set the failure of their ideas upon their political opposition. As Crony Capitalism is merely the product of Progressivism, which is just another facet of fascism, which is rooted in socialism.

See how easy this is?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So what does this have to do with our current topic? This is from 1980, this guy probably would have never believed that inequality would balloon the way it has. Back then a CEO got paid 42X the average worker, now it's 354X. Nobody is arguing against capitalism, just this crony capitalism we have now.

LOL. What does the Milton Freidman reply to the Donhue question (which itself was PREMISED on concern with income inequality) have to do with the topic of income inequality?

You guys are amazing. Not very bright or persuasive, but amazingly funny.

The liberal premise which invokes 'concerns' about "income inequality" is ALL part and parcel of the utopian socialist (leftist/liberal/progressive) call for the abolition of capitalism. You folks relentlessly challenge the underpinnings of capitalism. You actually WANT others to buy into the ridiculous notion that because SOME people make a significant amount of money and have acquired significant wealth, anybody making less or having little wealth is somehow a "victim" of the richer folks.

This is shy you use such cheap as rhetorical devices as 1% vs 99%. You are class warfare hacks. Divide and conquer. Us vs. them. Damn but you folks are stale.

You are transparent hacks and the time has come (it's in fact long past due) to expose you and your "premises" at every turn.

MOST of you decline to admit your actual agenda. SOME of you are such sheep, you don't even grasp what it is you are saying.

Who has said they want an abolition of capitalism? I haven't heard anyone say that. I love how your only defense is always saying everyone wants to be communists. Nobody is saying that. We have capitalism, but it is crony capitalism and we need to fix it.

Not saying it is hardly the same thing as not (in practical effect) calling for it.

In any case, those who make the silly empty argument about "income inequality" might simply be in that group of liberals who are simply vapid sheep.

I have YET to see a solid argument made by anybody that inequality in income (no matter how divergent it might get) somehow CAUSES "poverty." ANd if it does not cause poverty, then it is nothing more than ENVY. In that case, of course, fuck it. I am rightfully indifferent to it. But I'll go one further.

I WANT there to be income inequality. I LIKE the idea of INCENTIVE. If the other guy is making more than me because he works smarter or harder, then I am getting a LOT of incentive to up my own game. In the process, we ALL benefit. And almost any and all contrary arguments have, at their roots, some basic misgivings about Capitalism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL. What does the Milton Freidman reply to the Donhue question (which itself was PREMISED on concern with income inequality) have to do with the topic of income inequality?

You guys are amazing. Not very bright or persuasive, but amazingly funny.

The liberal premise which invokes 'concerns' about "income inequality" is ALL part and parcel of the utopian socialist (leftist/liberal/progressive) call for the abolition of capitalism. You folks relentlessly challenge the underpinnings of capitalism. You actually WANT others to buy into the ridiculous notion that because SOME people make a significant amount of money and have acquired significant wealth, anybody making less or having little wealth is somehow a "victim" of the richer folks.

This is shy you use such cheap as rhetorical devices as 1% vs 99%. You are class warfare hacks. Divide and conquer. Us vs. them. Damn but you folks are stale.

You are transparent hacks and the time has come (it's in fact long past due) to expose you and your "premises" at every turn.

MOST of you decline to admit your actual agenda. SOME of you are such sheep, you don't even grasp what it is you are saying.

Who has said they want an abolition of capitalism? I haven't heard anyone say that. I love how your only defense is always saying everyone wants to be communists. Nobody is saying that. We have capitalism, but it is crony capitalism and we need to fix it.

Not saying it is hardly the same thing as not 9in practical effect) calling for it.

In any case, those who make the silly empty argument about "income inequality" might simply be in that group of liberals who are simply vapid sheep.

I have YET to see a solid argument made by anybody that inequality in income (no matter how divergent it might get) somehow CAUSES "poverty." ANd if it does not cause poverty, then it is nothing more than ENVY. In that case, of course, fuck it. I am rightfully indifferent to it. But I'll go one further.

I WANT there to be income inequality. I LIKE the idea of INCENTIVE. If the other guy is making more than me because he works smarter or harder, then I am getting a LOT of incentive to up my own game. In the process, we ALL benefit. And almost any and all contrary arguments have, at their roots, some basic misgivings about Capitalism.

Very well said.

Of course, your argument appeals to what? It appeals to the strength of your character.

While the opposition is appealing to the weakness of their own character.

Humanity has known this for thousands of years. As such is simply a fact of nature. There are many ways to express it, but the adage regarding a rotten apple spoiling the whole barrel, is a classic example of it.

Which is part and parcel of the foolishness which comes into play, when the Left runs to claim that they have a right to say whatever they want, without regard to the destructive nature of their speech.

The right to speak freely rests in the responsibility to not use one's speech to harm another, or usurp their means to do the same.

This is a very basic natural law. Yet who would argue that the ideological left does not stand, almost exclusively, on the claim that they have a right to prevent others from speaking?

The evidence is irrefutable if one considers no other fact, than political correctness, which exists for no other reason than as a means to discourage oppositional points of view.

This being a fundamental American principle, we can see that the Left's rejection of it, sets the evidence of their anti-American nature, with their claim being that their advocacy of the right proves them American, even while they're oblivious to the responsibility side of the 'right' equation.

 

[Indeependent]

Any proof of that? No, of course not.

Proof?
Do you learn Torah? Mishnah? Gemarrah?
Better yet, what Mesechta (Tractate) are you learning at the moment?
You never did ANY of the Bava (Torts, Contracts and General Social Obligations)?
You know you are responsible for communal infrastructure, a community supported police, legislative and punitive system.
Roads, bridges, tunnels.
And these laws do NOT apply ONLY in Israel.

You have to either be a Conservative Jew at best or you flunked all of your Judaic related classes.

You understand the United States is not governed by halakha, right?

You must have missed, "And these laws do NOT apply ONLY in Israel."
You're a Jew? You have Torah responsibilities regardless of where you live.
In other words, a Jew who wants to be a Libertarian is screwed.

 

[Brain357]

LOL. What does the Milton Freidman reply to the Donhue question (which itself was PREMISED on concern with income inequality) have to do with the topic of income inequality?

You guys are amazing. Not very bright or persuasive, but amazingly funny.

The liberal premise which invokes 'concerns' about "income inequality" is ALL part and parcel of the utopian socialist (leftist/liberal/progressive) call for the abolition of capitalism. You folks relentlessly challenge the underpinnings of capitalism. You actually WANT others to buy into the ridiculous notion that because SOME people make a significant amount of money and have acquired significant wealth, anybody making less or having little wealth is somehow a "victim" of the richer folks.

This is shy you use such cheap as rhetorical devices as 1% vs 99%. You are class warfare hacks. Divide and conquer. Us vs. them. Damn but you folks are stale.

You are transparent hacks and the time has come (it's in fact long past due) to expose you and your "premises" at every turn.

MOST of you decline to admit your actual agenda. SOME of you are such sheep, you don't even grasp what it is you are saying.

Who has said they want an abolition of capitalism? I haven't heard anyone say that. I love how your only defense is always saying everyone wants to be communists. Nobody is saying that. We have capitalism, but it is crony capitalism and we need to fix it.

Not saying it is hardly the same thing as not (in practical effect) calling for it.

In any case, those who make the silly empty argument about "income inequality" might simply be in that group of liberals who are simply vapid sheep.

I have YET to see a solid argument made by anybody that inequality in income (no matter how divergent it might get) somehow CAUSES "poverty." ANd if it does not cause poverty, then it is nothing more than ENVY. In that case, of course, fuck it. I am rightfully indifferent to it. But I'll go one further.

I WANT there to be income inequality. I LIKE the idea of INCENTIVE. If the other guy is making more than me because he works smarter or harder, then I am getting a LOT of incentive to up my own game. In the process, we ALL benefit. And almost any and all contrary arguments have, at their roots, some basic misgivings about Capitalism.

Well of course there should be inequality. But when it is growing from corporate welfare and crony capitalism it's a problem. Your going to tell me that this level of inequality is from pure capitalism? As if we have anything near pure capitalism here. So those CEO's in 1980 making 42X the average worker just weren't working very hard? Now those ceo's making 354X the average worker are working that much harder and deserve that much more right? haha Well like I said before, all this growing inequality just makes the government bigger. If it keeps up the government will do more and more to help the people. I guess that's the future you want.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who has said they want an abolition of capitalism? I haven't heard anyone say that. I love how your only defense is always saying everyone wants to be communists. Nobody is saying that. We have capitalism, but it is crony capitalism and we need to fix it.

Not saying it is hardly the same thing as not (in practical effect) calling for it.

In any case, those who make the silly empty argument about "income inequality" might simply be in that group of liberals who are simply vapid sheep.

I have YET to see a solid argument made by anybody that inequality in income (no matter how divergent it might get) somehow CAUSES "poverty." ANd if it does not cause poverty, then it is nothing more than ENVY. In that case, of course, fuck it. I am rightfully indifferent to it. But I'll go one further.

I WANT there to be income inequality. I LIKE the idea of INCENTIVE. If the other guy is making more than me because he works smarter or harder, then I am getting a LOT of incentive to up my own game. In the process, we ALL benefit. And almost any and all contrary arguments have, at their roots, some basic misgivings about Capitalism.

Well of course there should be inequality. But when it is growing from corporate welfare and crony capitalism it's a problem. Your going to tell me that this level of inequality is from pure capitalism? As if we have anything near pure capitalism here. So those CEO's in 1980 making 42X the average worker just weren't working very hard? Now those ceo's making 354X the average worker are working that much harder and deserve that much more right? haha Well like I said before, all this growing inequality just makes the government bigger. If it keeps up the government will do more and more to help the people. I guess that's the future you want.

"... Government will do more TO the people ..."

Corrected that for ya.

 

[Brain357]

Not saying it is hardly the same thing as not (in practical effect) calling for it.

In any case, those who make the silly empty argument about "income inequality" might simply be in that group of liberals who are simply vapid sheep.

I have YET to see a solid argument made by anybody that inequality in income (no matter how divergent it might get) somehow CAUSES "poverty." ANd if it does not cause poverty, then it is nothing more than ENVY. In that case, of course, fuck it. I am rightfully indifferent to it. But I'll go one further.

I WANT there to be income inequality. I LIKE the idea of INCENTIVE. If the other guy is making more than me because he works smarter or harder, then I am getting a LOT of incentive to up my own game. In the process, we ALL benefit. And almost any and all contrary arguments have, at their roots, some basic misgivings about Capitalism.

Well of course there should be inequality. But when it is growing from corporate welfare and crony capitalism it's a problem. Your going to tell me that this level of inequality is from pure capitalism? As if we have anything near pure capitalism here. So those CEO's in 1980 making 42X the average worker just weren't working very hard? Now those ceo's making 354X the average worker are working that much harder and deserve that much more right? haha Well like I said before, all this growing inequality just makes the government bigger. If it keeps up the government will do more and more to help the people. I guess that's the future you want.

"... Government will do more TO the people ..."

Corrected that for ya.

Hey, say it the way you want, the result will be the same. The government will continue to grow. Government spending has been rocketing up right with the growth in inequality. This will continue and it doesn't matter if it's republicans or democrats in control. Enjoy the growth.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well of course there should be inequality. But when it is growing from corporate welfare and crony capitalism it's a problem. Your going to tell me that this level of inequality is from pure capitalism? As if we have anything near pure capitalism here. So those CEO's in 1980 making 42X the average worker just weren't working very hard? Now those ceo's making 354X the average worker are working that much harder and deserve that much more right? haha Well like I said before, all this growing inequality just makes the government bigger. If it keeps up the government will do more and more to help the people. I guess that's the future you want.

"... Government will do more TO the people ..."

Corrected that for ya.

Hey, say it the way you want, the result will be the same. The government will continue to grow. Government spending has been rocketing up right with the growth in inequality. This will continue and it doesn't matter if it's republicans or democrats in control. Enjoy the growth.

I sense that we probably agree, but I am simply not comfortable, to the degree which you seem to be, with the loose ends. I expect this stems from you knowing the forum better than me, and have come to learn what's a waste of time and what isn't.

Forgive me, I'm a newb to this house of intellectual horror.

But - Government, such as you've described will only grow until its unsustainable mass causes it to implode upon itself. Or an outside force destroys it.

In the case of the US government, it seems to be a race against the clock to see which gets there first.

 

[Brain357]

"... Government will do more TO the people ..."

Corrected that for ya.

Hey, say it the way you want, the result will be the same. The government will continue to grow. Government spending has been rocketing up right with the growth in inequality. This will continue and it doesn't matter if it's republicans or democrats in control. Enjoy the growth.

I sense that we probably agree, but I am simply not comfortable, to the degree which you seem to be, with the loose ends. I expect this stems from you knowing the forum better than me, and have come to learn what's a waste of time and what isn't.

Forgive me, I'm a newb to this house of intellectual horror.

But - Government, such as you've described will only grow until its unsustainable mass causes it to implode upon itself. Or an outside force destroys it.

In the case of the US government, it seems to be a race against the clock to see which gets there first.

Well yes the government continuing to grow is bad. But it's going to continue because we are a democracy. The rich have shipped jobs overseas and cut benefits. Meanwhile the government is filling this void, just look at obamacare. I'd prefer to give the rich some incentives to create more jobs here and give better pay and benefits. Then when people can once again get decent jobs, government spending can go down. Unless that happens we just might implode.

 

[The Rabbi]

Proof?
Do you learn Torah? Mishnah? Gemarrah?
Better yet, what Mesechta (Tractate) are you learning at the moment?
You never did ANY of the Bava (Torts, Contracts and General Social Obligations)?
You know you are responsible for communal infrastructure, a community supported police, legislative and punitive system.
Roads, bridges, tunnels.
And these laws do NOT apply ONLY in Israel.

You have to either be a Conservative Jew at best or you flunked all of your Judaic related classes.

You understand the United States is not governed by halakha, right?

You must have missed, "And these laws do NOT apply ONLY in Israel."
You're a Jew? You have Torah responsibilities regardless of where you live.
In other words, a Jew who wants to be a Libertarian is screwed.

You understand the vast majority of Americans are not Jews, right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hey, say it the way you want, the result will be the same. The government will continue to grow. Government spending has been rocketing up right with the growth in inequality. This will continue and it doesn't matter if it's republicans or democrats in control. Enjoy the growth.

I sense that we probably agree, but I am simply not comfortable, to the degree which you seem to be, with the loose ends. I expect this stems from you knowing the forum better than me, and have come to learn what's a waste of time and what isn't.

Forgive me, I'm a newb to this house of intellectual horror.

But - Government, such as you've described will only grow until its unsustainable mass causes it to implode upon itself. Or an outside force destroys it.

In the case of the US government, it seems to be a race against the clock to see which gets there first.

Well yes the government continuing to grow is bad. But it's going to continue because we are a democracy. The rich have shipped jobs overseas and cut benefits. Meanwhile the government is filling this void, just look at obamacare. I'd prefer to give the rich some incentives to create more jobs here and give better pay and benefits. Then when people can once again get decent jobs, government spending can go down. Unless that happens we just might implode.

First, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. If you need to recognize that Constitutional Republics are designed around democratic principles, I'm fine with that. But that is one helluva long way from being a Democracy.

Second, your point: 'growth of Government is bad, because we're a Democracy' is the reason that US Governance was specifically NOT established as such.

"The Rich" are a mythical beast which exists only in the mind of children and fools.

Business 'shipped jobs overseas', because socialists established such regulatory burdens on doing business in the US, that it became A LOT cheaper to move the entire operation overseas, than to keep it here.

If you're keeping score, that is Business reacting to threats against its best interests, from people intent upon harming them. Cause and effect.

Business exist as a means to fulfill the goals of those who own it. It owes nothing to those who they hire, beyond what was agreed to exchange for their services. If a person agreed to $15/hour then they're owed $15 for every hour they produce. PERIOD.

Today, it cost a business an additional 15/hr above the agreed upon $15 to sustain someone who THEMSELVES agreed that the hourly value they presented was worth $15. You'll note that that is a loss of 100% for the business. Hard to stay in business when you're paying 100% more than someone is worth.

Again, this is the basis upon which the Framers of the US Constitution specifically considered and overtly rejected Democracy.

They recognized that the advocates of Democracy were consistently incapable of objectivity. The results being that what seemed like a good idea on the surface, quickly began to consume itself.

Which, the scoreboard shows, is where we are today, because of precisely that reason.

Read my book: "Why Socialism Fails"

It's short and concise.

Chapt. 1: Socialism rests on Relativism.

Chapt. 2:Relativism rejects objectivity.

Chapt. 3: Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

Chapt. 4: Remove those elements from any culture and it is doomed to die a fiery, cruel death at the hands of its own children and the fools who mislead them.