|
On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it?
I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other.
I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm...
Seems to me that we're on the right track already.
|
On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm...
Even so, I think part of the power of that graph is how it shows that the average worker is benefiting far less in wage increases from improvements to productivity/profitability compared to the higher ups in a company (just think about how much more productive you are now compared to 1979 in comparison to how much more you make). Meanwhile with high unemployment, outsourcing (which to be fair if you don't consider outsourcing a problem that's fine, but the outsourced employees are ALSO not receiving the same rate of wage increase as the higher ups), no/weaker unions, etc. employees really don't have much power in being able to stop the disparity on their own. Sure maybe some can go off and start their own company, but that doesn't fix the issue at large for everyone.
|
On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already.
Sorry I snuck a edit in on you. I see what your saying. What you said is a blanket statement of Ron Paul's most recent moneybomb. Nearly 3 million from around 44,000 donors. Romney and Obama reaping in corporate/banker money, Perry's got some loot for the run. Cain is grinning his ass off, so is most of america over that 'smoking' add. Is the Fed financing Libya material support of Terrorism? It's just a thought(crime) hehe! Wish we could get a full audit so we could really identify who what why instead of marching here and marching there. Old McDonald had a march, e-i-e-i-o
|
On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already.
Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?...
The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long.
The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy.
You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless.
There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards?
|
|
|
On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards?
On top of everything, you can't even have a market without contract enforcement, so I'm sorry free marketeers, you still need the government~
|
On October 28 2011 04:15 Tuneful wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards? On top of everything, you can't even have a market without contract enforcement, so I'm sorry free marketeers, you still need the government~
of course, contract enforcement is very important. We have 14th amendment for this
|
On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards?
I believe Kiarip would expect us to make the smart decisions and somehow be completely aware of the companies that aren't up to snuff and just not interact with them, which i think is impossible people are busy living their lives unless such information is publicly gathered and posted in an easy to find location most people wont spend the time before they buy. But that's me putting words in his idealistic mouth, which frankly paints humanity in a nicer light then what i believe.
Personally i believe we can go another way don't have to remove government involvement in the economy, have people in such public office under strict watch and have strong ethical standards that are set in law hopefully mitigating conflicts of interest, what the details of that is i don't know. I fully support any train of thought for removing 3rd party money being involved in government, personally i think we should pay for campaigns as part of our income tax to the government or a brain new tax a liberty tax or w.e, we could have some sort of voucher system in which we can hand out to perspective candidates who we want to support, some low amount. I believe something like 150 dollars would generate a number if everyone participated up into the 3 billion dollar range for campaigns which is more then the total cost of elections for the last presidency, ofc this gets a bit messier when dealing with state and senate etc and that number keeps compounding but i'm sure there is an appropriate number for each of those races.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 27 2011 11:34 sunprince wrote:
I'm a staunch free market supporter in the top 5% socioeconomic strata, and my question is still: why is that we have socialism for the wealthy, and capitalism for everyone else?
90% of the bailout money has been repaid back.
2 trillion a year out of 3.6 trillion in government spending is spent on social programs for the ones in need.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 28 2011 04:23 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards? I believe Kiarip would expect us to make the smart decisions and somehow be completely aware of the companies that aren't up to snuff and just not interact with them, which i think is impossible people are busy living their lives unless such information is publicly gathered and posted in an easy to find location most people wont spend the time before they buy. But that's me putting words in his idealistic mouth. Personally i belive we can go another way, have people in such public office under strict watch and have strong ethical standards that are set in law hopefully mitigating conflicts of interest, what the details of that is i don't know. I fully support any train of thought removing 3rd party money being involved in government, personally i think we should pay for campaigns as part of our income tax to the government, we could have some sort of voucher system in which we can hand out to perspective candidates who we want to support, some low amount. I believe something like 100 dollars would generate a number if everyone participated up into the 3 billion dollar range for campaigns which is more then the total cost of elections for the last presidency, ofc this gets a bit messier when dealing with state and senate etc and that number keeps compounding but i'm sure there is an appropriate number for each of those races.
I fully expected Kiarip to respond the same. It's too bad there's a couple hundred years of evidence showing that the majority of people choose what's cheap in the short run, not what's efficient/safe/sustainable in the long run.
I also don't know what kind of system could fix the issue with corruption in politics without extreme oversight(which is still corruptible). Even with no government initiated business regulation, government would still control property rights and contract enforcement, which would still allow them to set the rules so that it's not a level playing field, thus making it effective to buy them out the same as they do now.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 28 2011 04:23 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards? I believe Kiarip would expect us to make the smart decisions and somehow be completely aware of the companies that aren't up to snuff and just not interact with them, which i think is impossible people are busy living their lives unless such information is publicly gathered and posted in an easy to find location most people wont spend the time before they buy. But that's me putting words in his idealistic mouth, which frankly paints humanity in a nicer light then what i believe. Personally i believe we can go another way don't have to remove government involvement in the economy, have people in such public office under strict watch and have strong ethical standards that are set in law hopefully mitigating conflicts of interest, what the details of that is i don't know. I fully support any train of thought for removing 3rd party money being involved in government, personally i think we should pay for campaigns as part of our income tax to the government or a brain new tax a liberty tax or w.e, we could have some sort of voucher system in which we can hand out to perspective candidates who we want to support, some low amount. I believe something like 150 dollars would generate a number if everyone participated up into the 3 billion dollar range for campaigns which is more then the total cost of elections for the last presidency, ofc this gets a bit messier when dealing with state and senate etc and that number keeps compounding but i'm sure there is an appropriate number for each of those races.
The politicians being bought out by companies, unions, other special interest is probably the biggest problem with America right now.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:58 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 10:05 Tien wrote:
Capitalism is the reason why they were able to collect 2.1+ Trillion in taxes in the 1st place.
Entitlement programs / wars / government bureaucracy is draining America's wealth away. What the point in having all that wealth if it is all in the hands of a tiny minority? Capitalism is a good engine for creating wealth but without a good system around it, controlling it and directing it, it is more akin to a house on fire than a well managed furnace.
Because it is the only motivating factor for capitalists to invest capital in starting businesses.
And not all of us think the state / government should be given more money to decide where to direct it. They're doing an awful job of it currently.
|
On October 28 2011 04:30 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:23 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards? I believe Kiarip would expect us to make the smart decisions and somehow be completely aware of the companies that aren't up to snuff and just not interact with them, which i think is impossible people are busy living their lives unless such information is publicly gathered and posted in an easy to find location most people wont spend the time before they buy. But that's me putting words in his idealistic mouth, which frankly paints humanity in a nicer light then what i believe. Personally i believe we can go another way don't have to remove government involvement in the economy, have people in such public office under strict watch and have strong ethical standards that are set in law hopefully mitigating conflicts of interest, what the details of that is i don't know. I fully support any train of thought for removing 3rd party money being involved in government, personally i think we should pay for campaigns as part of our income tax to the government or a brain new tax a liberty tax or w.e, we could have some sort of voucher system in which we can hand out to perspective candidates who we want to support, some low amount. I believe something like 150 dollars would generate a number if everyone participated up into the 3 billion dollar range for campaigns which is more then the total cost of elections for the last presidency, ofc this gets a bit messier when dealing with state and senate etc and that number keeps compounding but i'm sure there is an appropriate number for each of those races. The politicians being bought out by companies, unions, other special interest is probably the biggest problem with America right now.
That's why i would like a system in which elections their funding is done 100% by the people and the payment of it is done though taxes, not at the ballot box it is non negotiable and you must pay it. I'd also love for federal elections it be a federal holiday to encourage voting, hell we could combine it with veterans day if people are worried about more holidays and being not productive.
As far as lobbying i'd love for that to be removed as it stand now, we should be allowed to petition our government but the current system too heavily relies on paid professionals soliciting "problems" to the government. And in california in which direct democracy laws allow the people to force a issue onto a ballot companies pay other companies to obtain signatures for the issue, doesn't matter what it is but you can essentially buy a place on a ballot, which was outlawed but over turned by the courts later.
|
On October 28 2011 04:23 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards? I believe Kiarip would expect us to make the smart decisions and somehow be completely aware of the companies that aren't up to snuff and just not interact with them, which i think is impossible people are busy living their lives unless such information is publicly gathered and posted in an easy to find location most people wont spend the time before they buy. But that's me putting words in his idealistic mouth, which frankly paints humanity in a nicer light then what i believe.
Yeah... I addressed a lot of your concerns a couple of posts ago (and a billion times before that in this and other economics related topics.)
maybe you should respond to that instead.
Personally i believe we can go another way don't have to remove government involvement in the economy, have people in such public office under strict watch and have strong ethical standards that are set in law hopefully mitigating conflicts of interest, what the details of that is i don't know. I fully support any train of thought for removing 3rd party money being involved in government, personally i think we should pay for campaigns as part of our income tax to the government or a brain new tax a liberty tax or w.e, we could have some sort of voucher system in which we can hand out to perspective candidates who we want to support, some low amount. I believe something like 100 dollars would generate a number if everyone participated up into the 3 billion dollar range for campaigns which is more then the total cost of elections for the last presidency, ofc this gets a bit messier when dealing with state and senate etc and that number keeps compounding but i'm sure there is an appropriate number for each of those races.
paying income tax for campaigns isn't good because what if a ton of people want to run? it ruins the democratic principle of our republic even mroe so than it already by the 2 party system.
If you're gonna give tax money to people running for presidency you're gonna need some kind of standards about who can and can't receive money, which is frankly unconstitutional.
And having people decide who the money goes to makes no sense either, the point of the campaign is to introduce the people to the candidate's policy and political stances, and it would make sense that people could be aware of those things before they chose whether or not to give the money to his campaign.
The funny thing is... who here is REALLY being unreasonably faithful in humanity? Capitalism has shown itself in large portions to be self-sustainable by the principles of personal incentive, supply and demand, and free market competition...
You on the other hand are hoping that there can be some kind of system of over-sight where at the very top of it is some kind of person of amazing virtue, that he doesn't accept bribes... because if you introduce oversight for the government who's going to oversee this oversight?... Oversight is also a position of great power, and as long as the government has the power to control the market, if you're a large corporation there will always be someone you could offer a little(or a shitton) of money under the table in order to get a little government boost.
I advice you to read Plato's Republic. He tries to describe a perfect structure for a society that is NOT run on individuals' interests, then you can see who's really the one being unrealistic here.
I fully expected Kiarip to respond the same. It's too bad there's a couple hundred years of evidence showing that the majority of people choose what's cheap in the short run, not what's efficient/safe/sustainable in the long run.
I also don't know what kind of system could fix the issue with corruption in politics without extreme oversight(which is still corruptible). Even with no government initiated business regulation, government would still control property rights and contract enforcement, which would still allow them to set the rules so that it's not a level playing field, thus making it effective to buy them out the same as they do now
If it's cheap in the short run it still ahs some value to it. In the end when these things get exposed the problem isn't that some people earlier on didn't know and made mistakes they would have preferred to not make, but the fact that the government support of inefficient businesses is so strong that when everything gets unraveled the business still won't go under.
|
On October 28 2011 04:23 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards? I believe Kiarip would expect us to make the smart decisions and somehow be completely aware of the companies that aren't up to snuff and just not interact with them, which i think is impossible people are busy living their lives unless such information is publicly gathered and posted in an easy to find location most people wont spend the time before they buy. But that's me putting words in his idealistic mouth, which frankly paints humanity in a nicer light then what i believe. Personally i believe we can go another way don't have to remove government involvement in the economy, have people in such public office under strict watch and have strong ethical standards that are set in law hopefully mitigating conflicts of interest, what the details of that is i don't know. I fully support any train of thought for removing 3rd party money being involved in government, personally i think we should pay for campaigns as part of our income tax to the government, we could have some sort of voucher system in which we can hand out to perspective candidates who we want to support, some low amount. I believe something like 100 dollars would generate a number if everyone participated up into the 3 billion dollar range for campaigns which is more then the total cost of elections for the last presidency, ofc this gets a bit messier when dealing with state and senate etc and that number keeps compounding but i'm sure there is an appropriate number for each of those races.
Well, I don't always agree with Kia, but you poke is a bit unfair. We are at a tipping point socially and economically, while the world around us is boiling. I'm pretty libertarian by most accounts, but I believe in Rule of Law, contract enforcement. Regulations are one of the area's that a offhand account will almost never do. There are regulations that are good, and those that are horrible. Without delving deep and stripping existing junk regulations will dilute any effort going forward with good policy. Leaving them in place like some sort of political scar is denial imo.
Our central bank is deeply tied to the Euro/Global Crisis, at least finacially. We barely have a clue what it is doing. Engine trouble requires maintence, not more rules on driving. I'm all for good rules. I'm in favor of new rules. I just plan to be extra critical of bad ideas, at the worst times(we there yet?).
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 28 2011 04:38 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 04:23 semantics wrote:On October 28 2011 04:12 Myles wrote:On October 28 2011 04:07 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:50 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:48 BioNova wrote:On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote:
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day. If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it? I'm not. I'm saying gov and business for all intents and purposes here are the same thing. You protest one, you're protesting the other. I would fix the problem by voting in people that do not accept "campaign contributions". And I'd do this by starting grass roots movements to make people aware of the current corruption.... hm... Seems to me that we're on the right track already. Cain is on the right track? Obama is on the right track? Romney?... The problem with this is it's a very temporary solution, and it's so easy to the government to trick people with legislations that's thousands of pages long. The real solution is to get the government completely out of the business of managing economy. You get them out of the economy completely, and lobbyism will become useless. There has to be some level of involvement between the government and business. While I completely support removing many of the hurdles that government regulation creates, you can't remove them all. Specifically, who protects the environment? Child labor? Building standards? I believe Kiarip would expect us to make the smart decisions and somehow be completely aware of the companies that aren't up to snuff and just not interact with them, which i think is impossible people are busy living their lives unless such information is publicly gathered and posted in an easy to find location most people wont spend the time before they buy. But that's me putting words in his idealistic mouth, which frankly paints humanity in a nicer light then what i believe. Show nested quote +I fully expected Kiarip to respond the same. It's too bad there's a couple hundred years of evidence showing that the majority of people choose what's cheap in the short run, not what's efficient/safe/sustainable in the long run.
I also don't know what kind of system could fix the issue with corruption in politics without extreme oversight(which is still corruptible). Even with no government initiated business regulation, government would still control property rights and contract enforcement, which would still allow them to set the rules so that it's not a level playing field, thus making it effective to buy them out the same as they do now If it's cheap in the short run it still ahs some value to it. In the end when these things get exposed the problem isn't that some people earlier on didn't know and made mistakes they would have preferred to not make, but the fact that the government support of inefficient businesses is so strong that when everything gets unraveled the business still won't go under.
I think the ban on shark fin harvesting thread shows that a good number of people don't care about or understand the importance of preserving the environment. I think it's also well established through history that too many businesses would rather illegally dump pollutants to save money rather then worry about destroying the environment. To say it's government support that keeps unethical businesses running is laughable imo.
|
Awesome man thanks for vid!
|
I don't like the fact that the media is blaming police, 99% are just doing their jobs
|
On October 28 2011 04:56 Moonling wrote:
I don't like the fact that the media is blaming police, 99% are just doing their jobs
I wouldn't blame the police on the ground i would blame those in charge at the ground and who made the call to gather up all those officers from other cities for the raid, and frankly city and state and home land security officials are all bunting blame around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
