John Ashcroft

Ffactor · Apr 27, 2003

I don't think I would ever say this but I feel like if he gets away with everything he is doing there is a distinct possibility of the country shifting towards fascism. What do you think about the patriot act II where people's citizenship coud be revoked, whether naturalized or American born?

HULKSTER · Apr 27, 2003

FFactor, I got in some hot water before for saying how I feel about John Ascroft, and more notably, HOW we should deal with him. Bush is a puppet, and Cheney is only destructive when it comes to the environment getting in his way of making millions in the oil game. But when it comes to the lives and freedoms of ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR SOCIETY, no one is more dangerous to Americans than John Aschcroft. The damage he has done will take numerous years, if not decades, for future Administrations to undo. That's hoping that the Bush Administration doesn't get re-elected. And I emphasis Bush ADMINISTRATION, because it's Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield and especially ASHCROFT who are running the show. I wouldn't mind voting for Bush AGAIN if he dumped Aschroft and Cheney on his next election bid. I guess I could put up with Rumsfield's crap again, as long as he doesn't send us into WWIII. Actually, he probably would. Fuck that. Rumsfield would also have to get fired for me to vote for Bush again.

rsnoble · Apr 27, 2003

yep, fuck 'em all!

bwood · Apr 27, 2003

look at your next paycheck and what is
missing and think about how much of
a say you had in that and then think about
what you should really be worrying about...

DcupSheepNipples · Apr 27, 2003

HULKSTER said:
FFactor, I got in some hot water before for saying how I feel about John Ascroft, and more notably, HOW we should deal with him. Bush is a puppet, and Cheney is only destructive when it comes to the environment getting in his way of making millions in the oil game. But when it comes to the lives and freedoms of ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR SOCIETY, no one is more dangerous to Americans than John Aschcroft. The damage he has done will take numerous years, if not decades, for future Administrations to undo. That's hoping that the Bush Administration doesn't get re-elected. And I emphasis Bush ADMINISTRATION, because it's Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield and especially ASHCROFT who are running the show. I wouldn't mind voting for Bush AGAIN if he dumped Aschroft and Cheney on his next election bid. I guess I could put up with Rumsfield's crap again, as long as he doesn't send us into WWIII. Actually, he probably would. Fuck that. Rumsfield would also have to get fired for me to vote for Bush again.

Looking for Hulkster!

Frackal · Apr 27, 2003

Stop acting foolish again bwood. Ashcroft IS pretty disturbing.... both problems, overtaxation and facist legislation/draconian LEO..

DealsMorte · Apr 27, 2003

rsnoble said:
yep, fuck 'em all!

Another well thought out argument.

rsnoble · Apr 27, 2003

Yes, it was well thought out. I don't need to write 1300 paragraphs just to get that kinda response from you Bush supporters. So "fuck 'em all" pretty much sums it up without wasting my time or yours.

Ffactor · Apr 28, 2003

When I checked last 36% of my paycheck was going towards taxes. Only complaint is that it's going towards paying Ashcroft's salary. I'm not worried about Rumsfeld or the rest of them but I think Ashcroft will continue to damage this country.

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 28, 2003

bwood said:
look at your next paycheck and what is
missing and think about how much of
a say you had in that and then think about
what you should really be worrying about...

I can only assume this is another "critique" of

medicare/medicaid
social security
national defense
national debt interest
pensions/salaries for federal employees

Since that is where 91 cents of every federal tax dollar goes.

And I am sure you are prepared to speak at length about the impact of the elimination of these programs on the social order. So go ahead. Please, inform us.

As to the topic: Ashcroft is a religious zealot. His beliefs can be summarized by his action to put clothing (i. e. drapes) over the partially nude statues in and around the capital.

Frack - Ashcroft is bad news. But he is the natural progression of apathy--->tyranny.

muscle_geek · Apr 28, 2003

I certainly don't like everything "Ashcroft" does. But lets stop acting like this is one man's mission. He represents many and can't do anything without a lot of support from others.

Ffactor · Apr 28, 2003

Ashcroft is in the background quietly making changes in the name of 9/11 that will change this country forever. We don't hear much about it except for Homeland Security. Rumsfeld is a very smart man but stands to make millions from the Iraqi war along with Bush and Cheney. I still can't believe Ashcroft's nomination was confirmed. He is so Un-American.

jwill3:16 · Apr 28, 2003

if they go for the patriot act i hoipe this country revolts.. it is bull shit we dont close our borders and racial profile. i'm sorry was it a white person who high jacked those plainse no it was arab people. and last i knew they where not from this country either but no we lose more rights as we go along cause to many people are stupid and say its for the protection of us.. there is other methods that could be done.

Also green card people and visa need to be removed unless there here for work. or even limited there stay to a week or 2 thats what other countries do.

muscle_geek · Apr 28, 2003

Ffactor said:
Ashcroft is in the background quietly making changes in the name of 9/11 that will change this country forever. We don't hear much about it except for Homeland Security. Rumsfeld is a very smart man but stands to make millions from the Iraqi war along with Bush and Cheney. I still can't believe Ashcroft's nomination was confirmed. He is so Un-American.

The biggest profiteer from the Iraq war is Diane Feinstein's husband which owns URS. She was firmly anti-war. Cheney does not work for Halliburton. He makes nothing. How exaclty does Bush and Rumsfeld make money. Be specific.

Ffactor · Apr 28, 2003

Well, what percent of this countries Arab population would commit acts of terrorism? Will profiling all Arabs help catch more terrorists? Who are greater in numbers in this country, Arab terrorists or KKK, Militia Gropus, Aryan Nation or Neo-Nazi's. At last count there were a more than a hundred thousand heavily armed members of domestic terrorist groups. Do you think there are that many Arab terrorists collectively throughout the world? I think we have to accept 9/11 as a failure of the FBI and the CIA and move on. I think all these so called acts and homeland security will not help us catch more terrorists more so than normal security measures.

bwood · Apr 28, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
I can only assume this is another "critique" of

medicare/medicaid
social security
national defense
national debt interest
pensions/salaries for federal employees

Since that is where 91 cents of every federal tax dollar goes.

And I am sure you are prepared to speak at length about the impact of the elimination of these programs on the social order. So go ahead. Please, inform us.

actually only a critique of the 415 billion dollar welfare plan...

which is about 20 % of the federal budget...

and of that 415 billion, almost 25% is in the form of direct
cash payments to welfare parasites...

my statistics are taken from congressional records...

where did you get your 91 cent one from???

as i have never discussed any of the points you mentioned i will limit my discussion to what i have...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
eliminating welfare pros...

no more bargaining with the worthless and incompetent
to placate them...

which would equal to their "revolting" which would lead
to law enforcement actions being directed against them, instead
of the middle class as it is now...which i am all for and which
would help redirect Mr. Ashcroft's interests...which is a concern you ashcroft haters should share...

no disincentives to produce...most would get a job if the
criminal justice system responding accordingly when they
"revolted"...

fewer low wage openings=less illegal immigration=able to
seal up the border due to less minority whining about that at least...this would also defeat the current liberal agenda to
divide the nation into english speakers and non-english speakers thus making us easier to control...a concern you ashcroft haters should share with me...

end of federal subsidized breeding programs that ensure a
slow and steady growth of parasites to the point that the
system either cannot or will not sustain them...which will
lead to anarchy and the collapse of any and all democratic
freedoms due to the extreme measures undertaken to counteract
the aforementioned "revolution"...similiar to your concerns with
mr ashcroft...

of course a bad harvest or another world war will never happen
so we will always be able to feed the extraneous, right???

vast reduction in the fed govt staff as it relates to welfare...
would this negatively effect the economy??? perhaps in the
short term, but the rebound would surpass any negative impact
IMHO...see argument below concerning the self sufficency of the
fed bureaucracy...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is no rational argument for welfare...

ask any austrailian aborginal...

there is the compassion argument, which is false and misleading...

it should be readily apparent, that the subsidized increase of the numbers of the incompetent, will only result in massive and horrendous suffering when the system is no longer able to
support them...

that is not compassion...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

the existence of mr ashcroft is possible only due to the
presence of the tyrannical and oppressive federal income tax...

which is mostly justified by EQUITY concerns...

it gives the federal govt a steady supply of our money to redistribute as it sees fit...

which leads to a large bureaucracy that is capable of propogating itself and shouting down anything that threatens it though its power at the polls...which serves to negate any benefits of democracy and transform it into an oppressive oliogarchy run
by the bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats, and as such, is a major drain on the economy by its need to constantly affirm its reasons for existing by interfering with market forces in the
name of EQUITY...

basically, a large group of people willing to look the other
way as our freedoms are eroded by their employer...

and the effective federal tax rate is not 36 %...

the income tax may be, but that is semantics...

check the fed tax on gas, that we wouldnt have to
pay if welfare dollars were redirected into the federal highway program...

check out the estate tax...

the capital gains tax and many more that i cannot think of
right now...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

compared to the threat of mr ashcroft, fed taxation is the concern...

anyone with experience in the courts should recognize the
low potential of ashcroft getting what he wants, of federal judges enforcing it, and the high potential that a sucessive liberal president or congress will shitcan it or that the supreme court
will shitcan it...

to counteract the usual retorts...
i have not spell checked or grammar checked the above...
if you cant deal with that, dont read my posts...

Ffactor · Apr 28, 2003

muscle_geek said:
The biggest profiteer from the Iraq war is Diane Feinstein's husband which owns URS. She was firmly anti-war. Cheney does not work for Halliburton. He makes nothing. How exaclty does Bush and Rumsfeld make money. Be specific.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-04.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0422-10.htm

http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/regime0123.php

http://www.socialism.com/nowar/noiraqwar.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/081400a1.html

http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm

Bush's family heavily tied into the oil business.

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 28, 2003

Bwood

Your post is classic agenda-mongering. Referring to people are "parasites" uising terms like "subsidized breeding" or "worthless and incompetent" is shameless agenda mongering, and it is amazing sonmeone as smart as you would fall for it.

I'll use the same logic on you. Do you make over $500K per year? No?

well, then you're worthless and incompetent. You are a loser and a parasite who is unable to pay his share for the freedoms he enjoys. .

We're getting pretty sick of you and you low-income earners. Here we are paying several hundred thousand a year to support this nation, and you chip in what? $30K in taxes? $50K? Maybe you should get less freedom than I should, or fewer rights.

You're down there in the 5-figure or low 6 figure range? You failure. Can't get a job that pays $500K? So you have to slow down the economy for the rest of us because all of your big purchases are high friction?

You're just a parasite that those of us who really foot the tax bill could do without. Stop wasting my resources.

the nature boy · Apr 28, 2003

good stuff

Ffactor · Apr 28, 2003

I would like to keep this at the top. For those of you who are familiar with him and support him that's fine, if you don't just do a search and find out about some of the things he stood for in the past and is trying to implement now.

Ffactor · Apr 28, 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/1120440.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/12/opinion/meyer/main512021.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/21/opinion/meyer/main513037.shtml

Ffactor · Apr 28, 2003

Anybody read the articles?

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 28, 2003

Ffactor said:
Anybody read the articles?

Yeah always. I'll bumpthis and remind allof us that this guy lost an election to a dead guy.

rsnoble · Apr 28, 2003

At this rate, it won't be long before some of us start getting arrested for stating our opinions on these boards, etc. I'd imagine I already have a nice Asscroft file on me.

Lao Tzu · Apr 28, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
Frack - Ashcroft is bad news. But he is the natural progression of apathy--->tyranny.

Why do people say that, like politics runs in cycles of tyranny & freedom? When was america technically 'free' and what will we look like when we are under tyranny? We've always had low level laws preventing people from utilizing their rights. Just 40 years ago alot of 'free' things we take for granted today were illegal. Interracial marriages, adultry, homosexuality, a non married couple living together. Not to mention McCarthyism, Jim Crow, or a variety of other rules & regulations.

I'm all for kicking Ashcroft out of office, but that is for his part in the DEA arresting people for growing medical marijuana in California. Stealing sick people's medicine because it violates your prejudices is too fucking far.

bwood · Apr 28, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
Bwood
I'll use the same logic on you. Do you make over $500K per year? No?

well, then you're worthless and incompetent. You are a loser and a parasite who is unable to pay his share for the freedoms he enjoys. .

We're getting pretty sick of you and you low-income earners. Here we are paying several hundred thousand a year to support this nation, and you chip in what? $30K in taxes? $50K? Maybe you should get less freedom than I should, or fewer rights.

You're down there in the 5-figure or low 6 figure range? You failure. Can't get a job that pays $500K? So you have to slow down the economy for the rest of us because all of your big purchases are high friction?

You're just a parasite that those of us who really foot the tax bill could do without. Stop wasting my resources.

the same logic??? please...

why do you equate receiving welfare with freedom
or equal rights???

the founding fathers sure didnt...

why wouldnt i call multi-generation welfare families parasites???

one is not a loser or a parasite based on their income...

never said that, one is a parasite when they think
that others should compensate them for their poor
decision making(you know, having children and not
being able to afford them, having a $20,000 car and
no health insurance/life insurance; smoking crack, etc...) you may want to subsidize that, but i do not...

and amazingly enough, people that only make 20-30k
a year can survive fairly well without welfare...

most likely could do even better if not toting the note
for the others that wont work and were able to keep
their earnings...

but following your logic, in the interests of equity, we should
raise the minimum wage to what? $20/hr, $30 /hr???

what is fair???

$50 an hour...why not???

you sound like a limosine liberal that lives in
a gated community when you talk like this...

you worry about ashcroft taking away some
freedoms from you...

you then think that i am outta line in equating
the confiscation of my money, to pay for social
programs that have not made one iota of difference
except for running up a toll in the trillions since 1964, with
taking away some of my freedoms...

not to mention taking away a sense of pride or accomplishment
in those that refuse to get on the dole and still have pride in
their ability to be reponsible citizens...

in short, pimping the human spirit...in the name of compassion and equity...

at least ashcroft looks ya in the eye when he fucks ya...

bwood · Apr 28, 2003

by the way, matt...

I WILL MAKE THAT MUCH ONE DAY AND
I DONT NEED YOUR OR THE GOVT'S HELP TO
DO SO...

dont demean my accomplishments by inferring that i or
anyone does...

you have no right to question my intelligence just because
i do not agree with you...

and dont try the "but i didnt say that" passive aggressive bs...

I HAVE WORKED IN AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL AND
HAVE WITNESSED THE HARM AND CARNAGE THAT
LIBERAL SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS CAUSE...

have you???

i want the life of luxury, but i damn sure dont
want it handed to me...

why dont you address some of my other points...

am i an elitist when it comes to accomplishment???

damn right...

no job, a lot of kids, no attempt at self improvement???

parasite, pure and simple...

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 28, 2003

bwood said:
the same logic??? please...

why do you equate receiving welfare with freedom
or equal rights???

the founding fathers sure didnt...

The concept of welfare was not an issue in the agrarian econopmy of the founding fathers. If you think they really meant "all men are created equal", consider that many owned slaves. They never considered all men equal, which is OK given the conditionsof the time. Irrelevant now.

why wouldnt i call multi-generation welfare families parasites???

because it should be apparent to you that success has as much to do with opportunity as ability. Why was Bush a C student and still went to Yale and then Harvard?

one is not a loser or a parasite based on their income...

Yes they are. I am paying all these tax dollars to get roads built, hire police, run schools, fund the military and a bunch of other services that people like you and the other peple not earning top 1% incomes are using a disproportionate share of. All these losers pay less taxes and get the same services. Parasites.

one is a parasite when they think
that others should compensate them for their poor
decision making(you know, having children and not
being able to afford them, having a $20,000 car and
no health insurance/life insurance; smoking crack, etc...) you may want to subsidize that, but i do not...

What about the middle class's poor decisions and inability to earn a top 1% income? Those were lousy decisions (you know, joining law enforement, going to school, not making $500K) you may think that is OK but I think you are a big resource-hog.

and amazingly enough, people that only make 20-30k
a year can survive fairly well without welfare...

Yep, because high income earners have paid for a society that makes it possible for them.

most likely could do even better if not toting the note
for the others that wont work and were able to keep
their earnings...

Those of us with very high incomes feel the same about people making average wages. I am so sick of paying for the god damn middle class. When will these people get it gogether?
Fucking resource hogging parasites.

but following your logic, in the interests of equity, we should
raise the minimum wage to what? $20/hr, $30 /hr???

what is fair???

$50 an hour...why not???

Nope, eliminate it.

My problem is with the motherfucking middle class people earning 50K, or maybe families earning 70K and looking down their nose at those who are on government assistance.

I am fucking sick of subsidizing the middle class's bad decisions. These people work 9 hour days and go home to their wives, or go out drinking with their friends on weekends, while some of us work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, write books, make business deals....and I am fucking sick of paying for their laziness and slovenly lifestyle.

you sound like a limosine liberal that lives in
a gated community when you talk like this...

First, I'd never live in a gated community. Tacky. House might have gates though....still designing it. Anyway...I'm not a liberal. I am just sick of subsidizng other people.

you then think that i am outta line in equating
the confiscation of my money, to pay for social
programs that have not made one iota of difference
except for running up a toll in the trillions since 1964, with
taking away some of my freedoms...

Actually,those programs, which are often admittedly wasteful, have raised the standard of living for the country's poor considerably. People aren't starving to death, etc. teh real challenge is to provide more than just cash in had for poor people...or something instead of welfare, like we have for the middle class. In short, opportunity.

not to mention taking away a sense of pride or accomplishment
in those that refuse to get on the dole and still have pride in
their ability to be reponsible citizens...

in short, pimping the human spirit...in the name of compassion and equity...

at least ashcroft looks ya in the eye when he fucks ya...

the government is not designed to legislate pride, thehuman spirit or any of that. it is designed to protect our rights: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 28, 2003

bwood said:
by the way, matt...

I WILL MAKE THAT MUCH ONE DAY AND
I DONT NEED YOUR OR THE GOVT'S HELP TO
DO SO...

dont demean my accomplishments by inferring that i or
anyone does...

I hope so. I'm sick of all these middle class people hogging resources. Could you hurry up already? i am a little bit sick of subsidizing your opportunity.

you have no right to question my intelligence just because
i do not agree with you...

and dont try the "but i didnt say that" passive aggressive bs...

I questioned the intelligence of your ideas...not your own. Your ideas ignore the relationship between opportunity and success.

I HAVE WORKED IN AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL AND
HAVE WITNESSED THE HARM AND CARNAGE THAT
LIBERAL SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS CAUSE...

have you???

I've received public assistance.

My sister is a teacher in NY city. I know what you're talking about. where would those people be without public assistance? Jail? That's a hell of a lot more expensive than welfare.

i want the life of luxury, but i damn sure dont
want it handed to me...

It rarely is, unless your an heir or something.

why dont you address some of my other points...

You don't have points. You have a narrow minded way of viewing an issue without even a basic understanding of the root causes of the issue. Instead, you're isolating the symptoms (not causes) and suggesting we cure them. This is what government does all the time, usually for votes, and it always misses the point. Just like you in this case.

Opportunity----> success. That's the point. Giving people checks without giving them comparable opportunity leads the behavior you abhor. But take the checks away, and the opportunity still won't be there. More incarceration = more tax dollars spent.

am i an elitist when it comes to accomplishment???
damn right...
no job, a lot of kids, no attempt at self improvement???
parasite, pure and simple...

That's funny. I'll be an elitist too then:

Your opportunity in society is all due to high income earners creating it for you (or funding the government that safegaurds the society that creates it).

what are you creating? Can't earn $500K? we don't care that you;re trying....it means nothing. Results matter.

Take our opportunities and don't create others?

parasite.

Ffactor · Apr 28, 2003

nordstrom said:
Why do people say that, like politics runs in cycles of tyranny & freedom? When was america technically 'free' and what will we look like when we are under tyranny? We've always had low level laws preventing people from utilizing their rights. Just 40 years ago alot of 'free' things we take for granted today were illegal. Interracial marriages, adultry, homosexuality, a non married couple living together. Not to mention McCarthyism, Jim Crow, or a variety of other rules & regulations.

Absolutely, 40 years ago blacks did not have the right to vote. In fact a hundred or so years ago lynching and hanging was in fashion. We have made steady progress and I hope we continue to do so. That's why I don't like to go back to reminiscing about the good old days!

bwood · Apr 28, 2003

in response to the bemused paternalistic socialist musings of
(skywalker)...

(Yes they are. I am paying all these tax dollars to get roads built,
hire police, run schools, fund the military and a bunch of other
services that people like you and the other peple not earning
top 1% incomes are using a disproportionate share of.
All these losers pay less taxes and get the same services. Parasites.)

non sequitur...

your argument is not logical...

these middle class losers as you refer to them (albeit in a
joking condescending way to educate my inferior intelligence)
are the production force that makes your riches possible...

they are necessary to run the factories, maintain your vehicles,
build your highways, etc...

they do this in the eternal quest for a better life (the american dream)...

you cannot objectively measure the middle class' contribution
by tax input alone...

please tell me how welfare recipients are necessary in any sense...
(other than in a subjective "it feels good" analysis)

(The concept of welfare was not an issue in the agrarian econopmy
of the founding fathers. If you think they really meant "all men are
created equal", consider that many owned slaves.
They never considered all men equal, which is OK given the
conditionsof the time. Irrelevant now.)

non sequitur...

think taxation without representation (welfare for a
priviledged class that did not work/the aristocracy)...

i would guess that the founders would have had a problem
supporting those who refused to contribute to the economy since
they fought a war to escape it...

as usual, the spectre of slavery raises its ugly head...

aristotle likely had sex with children (socially accepted at the time)
does that mean we discard his wisdom???

(because it should be apparent to you that success has as much to
do with opportunity as ability. Why was Bush a C student and still
went to Yale and then Harvard?)

non sequitur...

einstein was a poor patents clerk, did he need welfare to be a success???
how about edison??? where was his welfare check???
hawkings??? why does he bother, could get a check...

(What about the middle class's poor decisions and inability to earn
a top 1% income? Those were lousy decisions (you know, joining
law enforement, going to school, not making $500K) you may think
that is OK but I think you are a big resource-hog.)

non sequitur...

liberal trick #46767, trying to win an argument by personal attacks...

you equate joining law enforcement and attending school in an attempt
to better one's self with breeding for govt rewards???

not worth addressing...

(Yep, because high income earners have paid for a society that
makes it possible for them.)

wrong again, paying for it, does not equate to the actual
construction of it...

without the middle class, the externalities would be such as
reduce being rich to living in a castle and overlooking your
lands without running water...once again, the founders didnt
think much of this...

(My problem is with the motherfucking middle class people earning
50K, or maybe families earning 70K and looking down their nose at
those who are on government assistance.

I am fucking sick of subsidizing the middle class's bad decisions.
These people work 9 hour days and go home to their wives, or go
out drinking with their friends on weekends, while some of us work
16 hour days, 7 days a week, write books, make business deals....
and I am fucking sick of paying for their laziness and
slovenly lifestyle.)

but you dont subsidize anything, you are a necessary
evil...the rich serve to incite human greed to obtain that
which you have, this is secondary only to hatred as a motivator...

this pursuit has the externality of enriching all society, rich and not so rich...

welfare has the end result of lessening production and
increasing dependence on the federal govt which serves to increase its power over us all...

(the government is not designed to legislate pride, thehuman spirit or
any of that. it is designed to protect our rights: life liberty and
the pursuit of happiness.)

and according to you, to pay for it if the citizen is unwilling to work
for it...

i hope no one tells the asian boat people that are able to become
financial successes in one generation, despite tremendous handicaps, that really, they should just get a check because they are stupid for having pride and working...

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution
made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system...

it has been a downhill trip ever since...

the entitlement mentality created by liberals is the crux of the problem...

crime did not appreciate significantly during the great depression...

but it would now, true, due to the creation of the entitlement
mentality...

but not everyone is so weak willed as to allow it to happen...

i have the guts to stop it, do you???

but i do not feel that you will consider my arguments as seriously
as i have yours..

so i am wasting my time...

your arguments are logically flawed, they are purely subjective
and as such, should proceed to file 13, along with the marxist
theory that spawned them...

next, you will want to make the beautiful wear masks and
to weight the feet of the fleet...

lenin is smiling in his tomb...

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 29, 2003

bwood said:
in response to the bemused paternalistic socialist musings

Socialist? Do you even know what that means? Are you missing the point that badly? I don't want socialsim. I have the most to lose. I want to use market forces to limit earning capacity while my incme rises. That's elitism, not socialism. We need to break this middle class government dependence.

these middle class losers as you refer to them (albeit in a
joking condescending way to educate my inferior intelligence)
are the production force that makes your riches possible...

they are necessary to run the factories, maintain your vehicles,
build your highways, etc...

they do this in the eternal quest for a better life (the american dream)...

The middle class's "contribution" as you mention is outweighed by the burden they place on society. That is why they are parasites. They take my resources and consume them, giving little back.

Employers have to insure them, our tax dollars are spent to protect them, educate them...why should most of my tax dollars go to helping out other people? After all, it's my money.

People should be paid for wage for fair work. But that should be market determined, not through minimum wage laws or unions. If I can get people to work for $2 / hour, why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't I be able to hire whoever I want at whatever wage they will accept? Why do I have to provide those people health benefits? Why do working conditions have to meet any safety guildelines?

All of these things are the fucking middle class hogging resources that I should be able to use elesewhere. All I get from them is work. I have to pay salary, benefits, unemployment insurance, and have you seen the premiums for worker's comp? I don;t get extra work for this. But I pay more. Fucking parasites.

you cannot objectively measure the middle class' contribution
by tax input alone...

I am measuring it by resource consumption vs resource replacement. That's fair, right? Isn't that the basis for your argument against welfare?

please tell me how welfare recipients are necessary in any sense...
(other than in a subjective "it feels good" analysis)

Tel me how all of these services we provide for the middle class are necessary. Why do we need a middle class at all? Except in a subjective, "feel good" analysis.

Why not have a pure free market, with no wage controls, no workplace safety laws, etc. Forget all of that crap.

I will summarize it like this to stay focused:

The middle class is on the dole. You, sir, are on the dole. You take more than you give. Middle class receives tremendous handouts either from the government, or from the wealthy via legislation. The government makes your American dream possible by forcing redistribution of wealth. Otherwise, wealth would ossify in dynastic families, and our society would turn to oligarchy.

You could never dream of the life you dream of without government controls on the behavior of the wealthiest segment of society.

Welfare receipients also get benefits from the government.

There is no difference. Please don't bother with "but we (middle class) work for our accomplishments". That is horsehsit. Your job affords you a middle class lifestyle for two reasons:

1. Tax dollars are applied to funding for the public good. Since you pay nothing in taxes (compared to the wealthy) you benefit disproportionately from roads, schools, police, etc.

2. Because the government mandates that employers do certain things for you, like prvide healthinsurance, pay unemploymetn so it is there for you, contribute taxes above and beyond what you contribute, etc.

The government allows you to live middle class, not your work efforts.

So if we carry out your soultion, let's take welfare recipients off the dole. But while we are at it, let's take you and all the middle class people off the dole, and welcome them into poverty.

You beneift from being closer to socialism,. Welathy people have the most to lose, and they lose it mainly to the middle class, not the poor.

You saying "get welfare recipsoff the tit" is the same as me saying "get middle class people off the tit".

So let's do it. Let's get you and your ilk off the tit.

bwood · Apr 29, 2003

(Socialist? Do you even know what that means? Are you missing the point that badly? I don't want socialsim. I have the most to lose. I want to use market forces to limit earning capacity while my incme rises. That's elitism, not socialism. We need to break this middle class government dependence.)

you are right...you are more of a marxist, but then, socialists are quite good at this too...

enriching yourself, while preaching equality outta
the other side of your mouth...

of course, i realize this is a continuation of your
attempt at sarcasm to belittle my argument
with emotion and your advanced intelligence...

(The middle class's "contribution" as you mention is outweighed by the burden they place on society. That is why they are parasites. They take my resources and consume them, giving little back.

Employers have to insure them, our tax dollars are spent to protect them, educate them...why should most of my tax dollars go to helping out other people? After all, it's my money.)

its called the costs of production and has no correlation
to welfare and you know it...

(People should be paid for wage for fair work. But that should be market determined, not through minimum wage laws or unions. If I can get people to work for $2 / hour, why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't I be able to hire whoever I want at whatever wage they will accept? Why do I have to provide those people health benefits? Why do working conditions have to meet any safety guildelines?

All of these things are the fucking middle class hogging resources that I should be able to use elesewhere. All I get from them is work. I have to pay salary, benefits, unemployment insurance, and have you seen the premiums for worker's comp? I don;t get extra work for this. But I pay more. Fucking parasites.)

agree on the minimum wage, but that was never my argument...

yes, you do get extra work as the health and safety benefits
lead to stability of the nuclear family, which leads to vastly increased planning ability and vastly increased production...

i will dumb it down for you, would you rather be rich in american
or haiti???

(I am measuring it by resource consumption vs resource replacement. That's fair, right? Isn't that the basis for your argument against welfare?)

illogical as usual...

the rich benefit exclusively from the production benefit
externalities of a strong middle class...

its called economies of scale...

i got a B.A. in econ before becoming a lowly public servant
so keep arguing this and looking silly...

the poor use the same amount of public services as the middle class do and an enhanced amount of services through the administration of welfare programs...

while producing nothing, other than more of themselves...

(The middle class is on the dole. You, sir, are on the dole. You take more than you give. Middle class receives tremendous handouts either from the government, or from the wealthy via legislation. The government makes your American dream possible by forcing redistribution of wealth. Otherwise, wealth would ossify in dynastic families, and our society would turn to oligarchy.

You could never dream of the life you dream of without government controls on the behavior of the wealthiest segment of society.)

you ultra richies pay 28 % of the total tax burden, please
get your facts right...

how did we get to 1964 without this redistribution of wealth???

how can we explain the richness of the 50's without liberal
do-gooders there to guide us poor helpless unfortunates
to their version of social utopia???

(Welfare receipients also get benefits from the government.

There is no difference. Please don't bother with "but we (middle class) work for our accomplishments". That is horsehsit. Your job affords you a middle class lifestyle for two reasons:

1. Tax dollars are applied to funding for the public good. Since you pay nothing in taxes (compared to the wealthy) you benefit disproportionately from roads, schools, police, etc.

2. Because the government mandates that employers do certain things for you, like prvide healthinsurance, pay unemploymetn so it is there for you, contribute taxes above and beyond what you contribute, etc.)

all costs of production...no logical argument...

you argument is based on the need for opportunity...

you think that the govt can create this...

you dont mention how, you just state that it should...

we have shoveled trillions of dollars at the problem and
it hasnt gotten any better...

if those dollars have been put into production, more opportunity
would have been created than any govt redistribution program
could imagine of...

you ignore my entire argument that the middle class is a necessary evil that rich shoulder to have the goods rich
existence that they do...

your argument is illogical as it compares the rich against the middle class and the middle class against the poor...

the poor could vanish tomorrow and no one would miss them...

the middle class could vanish tomorrow and you would be waiting
at the gas station for that tanker truck that aint coming, watching grass grow in a pothole that aint gonna get filled, while wondering why there is no food in the snack machine...

atlantabiolab · Apr 29, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
The concept of welfare was not an issue in the agrarian econopmy of the founding fathers. If you think they really meant "all men are created equal", consider that many owned slaves. They never considered all men equal, which is OK given the conditionsof the time. Irrelevant now.[/b]

MATT, you don't want me to pull out the words of the founders of this country to show you that you are wrong here, do you? Madison and Jefferson both argued against the idea of "welfare" for the good of the people. Malthus, in England, argued against British Welfare laws, stating that, in essence, feeding the poor only increases the number of poor.

As for slavery, many Founders were against slavery, even Jefferson did not relish the idea, but as men do, they were caught up in the "is" and not the "ought be".

because it should be apparent to you that success has as much to do with opportunity as ability. Why was Bush a C student and still went to Yale and then Harvard?

Yes they are. I am paying all these tax dollars to get roads built, hire police, run schools, fund the military and a bunch of other services that people like you and the other peple not earning top 1% incomes are using a disproportionate share of. All these losers pay less taxes and get the same services. Parasites.

What about the middle class's poor decisions and inability to earn a top 1% income? Those were lousy decisions (you know, joining law enforement, going to school, not making $500K) you may think that is OK but I think you are a big resource-hog.

Yep, because high income earners have paid for a society that makes it possible for them.

Those of us with very high incomes feel the same about people making average wages. I am so sick of paying for the god damn middle class. When will these people get it gogether?
Fucking resource hogging parasites.

Nope, eliminate it.

My problem is with the motherfucking middle class people earning 50K, or maybe families earning 70K and looking down their nose at those who are on government assistance.

I am fucking sick of subsidizing the middle class's bad decisions. These people work 9 hour days and go home to their wives, or go out drinking with their friends on weekends, while some of us work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, write books, make business deals....and I am fucking sick of paying for their laziness and slovenly lifestyle.

First, I'd never live in a gated community. Tacky. House might have gates though....still designing it. Anyway...I'm not a liberal. I am just sick of subsidizng other people.

bwood is arguing against the very root of your reverse argument, the income tax. I know you are playing devil's advocate, but it is erroneous, in that both arguments are based on the same premise: involuntary taxation through direct taxation of income. Both argument are solved by the removal of the income tax, since it provides the fodder for the class warfare.

Actually,those programs, which are often admittedly wasteful, have raised the standard of living for the country's poor considerably. People aren't starving to death, etc. teh real challenge is to provide more than just cash in had for poor people...or something instead of welfare, like we have for the middle class. In short, opportunity.

Government's job is not to provide opportunity, since opportunity is subjective and graduated, but to remove the barriers that other men or governments erect to prevent one from using his/her rights. There is no program that could remove the barriers that life provides one and to attempt this goal is to promote "opportunity" without effort. Why is it government's job to provide "opportunity" and not that of the public? If someone is vehement about aiding those who do not have, then who is preventing them? We have numerous organizations that provide for various causes, what would stop others from organizing for more causes? Why is it government's job?

the government is not designed to legislate pride, thehuman spirit or any of that. it is designed to protect our rights: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Correct. And it is not to dole out "opportunity" either.

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 29, 2003

bwood said:
you are right...you are more of a marxist, but then, socialists are quite good at this too...

enriching yourself, while preaching equality outta
the other side of your mouth...

I am not preaching equality for anyone. i am preaching oligarchy, a form of elitism.

i will dumb it down for you, would you rather be rich in american
or haiti???

Haiti. Hire a private security force and live in peace on a tropical island? Too easy.

the rich benefit exclusively from the production benefit
externalities of a strong middle class...

Sure they do. Take away controls on employment, such as the requirement for a safe work environment, work comp insurance, unemployment insurance (all subsidizde by the wealthy), and the middle class wil vanish into poverty. But they'll still have to do the work, or starve.

its called economies of scale...

i got a B.A. in econ before becoming a lowly public servant
so keep arguing this and looking silly...

And I am an employer. which education is more relevant?

the poor use the same amount of public services as the middle class do and an enhanced amount of services through the administration of welfare programs...

while producing nothing, other than more of themselves...

Actually they use a lot less.

you ultra richies pay 28 % of the total tax burden, please
get your facts right...

while comprising less than 1% of the population!!

how did we get to 1964 without this redistribution of wealth???

With a lower GDP and less productivity.

how can we explain the richness of the 50's without liberal
do-gooders there to guide us poor helpless unfortunates
to their version of social utopia???

Um...well, how about the GI Bill, the growth of VA, and programs for vets (VA loans, etc) would be a good place to start.

The boom of the 50's stands in contrast to the 30's.

all costs of production...no logical argument...

Which can be slashed dramtically by getting the middle class off of the dole, through removing the restrictions governmnet places on corporations. Unfortunately, the middle class's standard of living will drop as well, but we'll get incresedproductivity. After all, what will people do? starve? Nope. they'll just deal with it.

you argument is based on the need for opportunity...

you think that the govt can create this...

It created some for the middle class. it created the possibiluity of a middle class.

your argument is illogical as it compares the rich against the middle class and the middle class against the poor...

the poor could vanish tomorrow and no one would miss them...

the middle class could vanish tomorrow and you would be waiting
at the gas station for that tanker truck that aint coming, watching grass grow in a pothole that aint gonna get filled, while wondering why there is no food in the snack machine...

Wrong. The middle class would become poor and do the work anyway. What are their options? Starve? Earnnothing? remove the government controls that are keeping the middle class where they aer, and they vanish.

Those controls are not "the cost of production" they are "government's impositions on the cost of production", and they aer the only thing that keeps the middle clas where it is.

SoI agree, take the poor off the dole, and remove restrictions favoring the middle class. Oligarchy. Not bad.

Testosterone boy · Apr 29, 2003

Wait a second.....I'm middle class and I sure don't feel like the government is providing jack for me.

Police? I don't need them. Burglar alarms and a gun, when necessary, work just fine.

Roads? Don't need them either. Hell, my Jeep can go straight up. I wish we had no roads, much more fun without them.

Schools? Don't need them. Learn faster at the library and, oddly enough, Elite.

They keep me from proper enjoyment of public land however. Public land that was stolen in the first place from the rightful owners.....the American Indian.

They keep me afraid that some powerful figure will decide he is annoyed with me and sick the government on me. Oh wait, that already happened in a way.

I'll agree that a lot of wealth is accumulated through hard work and good decisions but a lot of it is basically stolen through fraud and manipulation of the system. How much is inherited anyways? How much do family connections account for other than one hell of a lot?

Fonz · Apr 29, 2003

Ahhh.......Another Matt vs RestofEF Deathmatch........

Nothing like one of these for some pre-afternoon light reading.

Fonz

Testosterone boy · Apr 29, 2003

Fonz said:
Ahhh.......Another Matt vs RestofEF Deathmatch........

Nothing like one of these for some pre-afternoon light reading.

Fonz

The rest of us are mere parasites making less than $500,000/yr. No contest.

Fonz · Apr 29, 2003

Testosterone boy said:
The rest of us are mere parasites making less than $500,000/yr. No contest.

Still.

Matt: 1

Bwood: 0

Bwoods points have all been categorically squashed to the consistency of silly putty.

Fonz

Lao Tzu · Apr 29, 2003

On a doller per dollar rate i thought the rich pay only slightly more taxes than everyone else? True, a person with 10 million will be taxed for more income in hard currency than someone with 40,000 but i think that the amount of money as a percent taken away is overall pretty much the same, maybe a 5-10% increase for the rich.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2077294/

Lao Tzu · Apr 29, 2003

bwood said:
the poor could vanish tomorrow and no one would miss them...

Not true, the poor are the backbone of the service industry.

Testosterone boy · Apr 29, 2003

Fonz said:
Still.

Matt: 1

Bwood: 0

Bwoods points have all been categorically squashed to the consistency of silly putty.

Fonz

Matt makes his living by winning arguments against other professionals. It really isn't fair for experienced pros to grapple with students and amateurs. Hell....we outta tax him.

Ffactor · Apr 29, 2003

nordstrom said:
Not true, the poor are the backbone of the service industry.

True, it's the working class that do all the physical stuff, the actual building. The concept of "All Men are Created Equal" comes from the exploitation of the European working class by the Aristocracy and Buorgeoise. This was created before slavery and did not take into account Africans or other minorities for that matter. Working class Europeans were not allowed to own land, here they were given that opportunity. A more correct interpretation of the constitution as it was written then might be" All White Men are Created Equal".

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 29, 2003

atlantabiolab said:
MATT, you don't want me to pull out the words of the founders of this country to show you that you are wrong here, do you? Madison and Jefferson both argued against the idea of "welfare" for the good of the people. Malthus, in England, argued against British Welfare laws, stating that, in essence, feeding the poor only increases the number of poor.

As for slavery, many Founders were against slavery, even Jefferson did not relish the idea, but as men do, they were caught up in the "is" and not the "ought be".

I agree.

bwood is arguing against the very root of your reverse argument, the income tax. I know you are playing devil's advocate, but it is erroneous, in that both arguments are based on the same premise: involuntary taxation through direct taxation of income. Both argument are solved by the removal of the income tax, since it provides the fodder for the class warfare.

I don't think he was arguing against income tax per se. He doesn't attack the size of the defense budget, Medicare/medicaid or any of that, or suggest means other than income tax for raising money for government operations. Conversely, he does not sugest that the government be dramaitcally reduced. Lastly, the only date he refers to as a point foreference is 1964. Income tax was creatde in 1913. It's impossible to conclude that he was arguing against income tax per se.

Government's job is not to provide opportunity, since opportunity is subjective and graduated, but to remove the barriers that other men or governments erect to prevent one from using his/her rights.

We agree on that. Do you agree that a complete hands off attitude regarding business would be a disaster and hasten the arrival of oligarchy, which is synonymous with the end of economic growth?

There is no program that could remove the barriers that life provides one and to attempt this goal is to promote "opportunity" without effort. Why is it government's job to provide "opportunity" and not that of the public?

The social contract implies that a group of people can benefit by the establishment of a limtied government that can apply resources for the benefit of all. Roads, schools, etc are all the result of this ideology.

This has created tremendous opportunity for most people. Prior to the creation of this system, education was available to aristocracy and clergy only, and most of the population were peasants.

Government intervention in business led to the creation of the middle class. Regulating work hours, conditions, work comp, unemployment etc., have all led to the development of the middle class.

Whereas bwood is arguing that these are necessary costs of production, they are not. They are government imposed conditions for production. They are also the reasons there is a middle class.

If someone is vehement about aiding those who do not have, then who is preventing them? We have numerous organizations that provide for various causes, what would stop others from organizing for more causes? Why is it government's job?

I am all for eliminating the government's role in aiding the poor, as long as we remove it equally for aiding teh middle class. bwood's original post played out a hypothesis for what would happen to the poor if welfare were stopped. The writer didn't consider what would happen to the middle class, should it cease to receive government aid in the form of workplace guidelines.

Those laws are not "the cost of production." Business was done long before those laws, and is done all over the world without those government impositions.

bwod's argument is that welfare is costly without a return.
If we are going to eliminate welfare, let's eliminate policies that benefit middle class at the expense of the rich. Those are welfare too.

Fonz · Apr 29, 2003

Testosterone boy said:
Matt makes his living by winning arguments against other professionals. It really isn't fair for experienced pros to grapple with students and amateurs. Hell....we outta tax him.

Yes, but his religious indoctrination makes him blind to a lot of jewish problems.

Hence why he always loses in geo-political-religious debates.

Fonz

bwood · Apr 29, 2003

the last of this as finals have started and it appears
that (skywalker) will not be turned from the darkside...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(And I am an employer. which education is more relevant? )

apparently mine is, as regarding to literacy anyway, since you stated here that...

(I don't think he was arguing against income tax per se. He doesn't attack the size of the defense budget, Medicare/medicaid or any of that, or suggest means other than income tax for raising money for government operations. Conversely, he does not sugest that the government be dramaitcally reduced. Lastly, the only date he refers to as a point foreference is 1964. Income tax was creatde in 1913. It's impossible to conclude that he was arguing against income tax per se. )
see above post # 31 where [] stated...

[[In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution
made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system...

it has been a downhill trip ever since...

the entitlement mentality created by liberals is the crux of the problem...]]

i started by attacking the most heinous of the problems that you list...
but in my opinion, the fed govt should only operate the military and provide an interstate highway system...

AND in post #16 where [] wrote...

[[the existence of mr ashcroft is possible only due to the
presence of the tyrannical and oppressive federal income tax...

which is mostly justified by EQUITY concerns...

it gives the federal govt a steady supply of our money to redistribute as it sees fit...

which leads to a large bureaucracy that is capable of propogating itself and shouting down anything that threatens it though its power at the polls...which serves to negate any benefits
of democracy and transform it into an oppressive oliogarchy run by the bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats, and as such, is a major drain on the economy by its need to constantly affirm
its reasons for existing by interfering with market forces in the name of EQUITY...]]

all of which points to a lack of objectiveness or outright carelessness by you in your haste in jump into this argument with your agenda, just because i used some terms you find offensive...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

but wait there's more...

(Haiti. Hire a private security force and live in peace on a tropical island? Too easy.)

too easy to be murdered in your sleep during a coup de grace due to the inherent instability of totalitarianism???

too easy to die from filthy water and third world disease???

remember, all the goods you ship in, have probably been produced by a welfare receiving middle class in another country...enjoy your wealth...and your michelin necktie...

"too easy" to maximize production to enrich yourself and provide opportunity for others???
with an uneducated working class with no infrastructure??? LOL!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Wrong. The middle class would become poor and do the work anyway. What are their options?
Starve? Earnnothing? remove the government controls that are keeping the middle class where they aer, and they vanish.

Those controls are not "the cost of production" they are "government's impositions on the cost of production", and they aer the only thing that keeps the middle clas where it is.)

you do remember the revolutionary war, the civil war??? i have a good idea of what will happen if the ultra rich did what you
are promoting...here's a hint from the nazi's; better get our guns first...

once again, the long term stability provided by the "welfare" you claim that the middle class receives benefits the rich, the middle class;
and outside of market forces, by government interference, welfare parasites...

boy that accurate terminology irritates you doesnt it???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I am all for eliminating the government's role in aiding the poor, as long as we remove it equally for aiding teh middle class. bwood's original post played out a hypothesis for what would happen to the poor if welfare were stopped. The writer didn't consider what would happen to the middle class, should it cease to receive government aid in the form of workplace guidelines.

Those laws are not "the cost of production." Business was done long before those laws, and is done all over the world without those government impositions.

bwod's argument is that welfare is costly without a return.
If we are going to eliminate welfare, let's eliminate policies that benefit middle class at the expense of the rich. Those are welfare too.)

only take from the poor if you take from the middle class??? what a childish sophistry...
those laws are the cost of production at the efficiency level it is now...promoting the stability of the middle class is key
to maintaining that level of production...you are trying to equate a nike shoe factory in a third world country with a computer programmer in california or a cancer researcher in massachusetts...a fallacious leap...an example of your idea is north korea...truly a modicum of economic efficiency and
"optimized production"...what's that??? "optimized production"??? that is the stuff that maximizes opportunity, not welfare programs...it results from an educated and healthy work force and a strong infrastructure...not from govt subsidized breeding...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and yet there is more...

(Um...well, how about the GI Bill, the growth of VA, and programs for vets (VA loans, etc) would be a good place to start.)

which mirrors the illogic of your other arguments...
take away incentives for soldiers to serve their country (another form of production)...brilliant idea to maximize production through
promoting instability...i guess you will force people to fight in wars??? that was a rousing success in vietnam
wasnt it??? (didnt result in jimmy carter stagflation did it???)
following your logic, we should increase welfare payments during war times as we are paying soldiers
to produce, because compensating them without further compensating the parasties is unfair...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(With a lower GDP and less productivity.)
dont have time to research this now...lets just say that i feel it is as accurate as your $ .91 comment
which you have neglected to quantify, dont worry, i dont forget 2Thickery... (btw, 2Thick is a good guy, that is just a term i use to describe the questionable use of questionable statistics, of which he has been guilty in his goal of sowing anarchy)...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Which can be slashed dramtically by getting the middle class off of the dole, through removing the restrictions governmnet places on corporations. Unfortunately, the middle class's standard of living will drop as well, but we'll get incresed productivity. After all, what will people do? starve? Nope. they'll just deal with it.)

increased productivity??? do you reason through this as you write it???
this is a very short term argument, while it is possible, it will fade quickly to a point negative return when measured against that of a society with a healthy middle class...
due, of course, to the loss of worker motivation, desire to excel, general education level, disruption
of the nuclear family due to health related problems/injuries, etc...

think henry ford, he knew to maximize production by paying more
and providing decent working conditions that promoted stability in his workers families...without governent intervention...
and his genius provided opportunity for how many others???
if only we had welfare back then...we'd probably still be riding horses...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

but there's even more...the peanut gallery has chimed in as if their opinion persuades me that i am wrong...

(Still.

Matt: 1

Bwood: 0

Bwoods points have all been categorically squashed to the consistency of silly putty.

Fonz)

with such a thoughtful analysis as is attached to this subjective appraisal...
how can i respond???
i know...with my scoring card...

bwood-the winner
atlantabiolab-intelligent stand up guy
matt-pwned
fonz-still irrelevant

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for the entertainment matt...
while another poster that i respect has mentioned you are a professional debater, i fail to see anyway in which you have prevailed in this argument...

my honest appraisal is that you are marginally harder to defeat in a debate than the aclu shitheads that i, as a member of the federalist society, thrash on a regular basis...

Fonz · Apr 29, 2003

bwood said:
i know...with my scoring card...

bwood-the winner
atlantabiolab-intelligent stand up guy
matt-pwned
fonz-still irrelevant

LOL

I've never been a big fan of political debates. They are ultimately pointless. Nothing ever changes.

Now if you were to want to delve into any type of physics or maths subjects I'd be game.

Fonz

bwood · Apr 29, 2003

Fonz said:
LOL

I've never been a big fan of political debates. They are ultimately pointless. Nothing ever changes.

Now if you were to want to delve into any type of physics or maths subjects I'd be game.

Fonz

bro, i am the first to admit that
you would stomp my ass in those...

i do love physics though and i feel
with your attitude and obvious intelligence
that you will be an asset to that community
and society at large...

want a welfare check???

Testosterone boy · Apr 29, 2003

I would give bwood more points if I could tell what was his writing vs what he was quoting. Hell.....he deserves credit for standing up for himself without just looking foolish. Thats better than most of us would do in that type of debate.

I wish I had studied those big fancy, spancy(sp) words in college a lil more now.

bwood · Apr 29, 2003

(........)=skywalker

[[......]]=previous post by me

ending in...=current writing by me

thanks for the props...

Testosterone boy · Apr 29, 2003

bwood said:
(........)=skywalker

[[......]]=previous post by me

ending in...=current writing by me

thanks for the props...

Too much work. I wish I knew how to dissect quotes and make it easy.

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 30, 2003

I guess I could sum it up like this:

Your argument is funny to me as an employer: When the government sets rules and guidleines for employing people (benefits, unemployment insurace, work comp, etc) the government is "optimizing production."

But when government hands out money it creates parasites.

So government instrusions into the market are OK when you benefit, and you use the euphemism "optimizing prodcution" for what is really "imposing additional costs on businesses".

But when the government helps poor people, it is "welfare", "the dole" etc.

The ideas behind these "optimizing production" laws are the same as the idea behind welfare, income tax, etc.: take money from rich people (or businesses) and redistribute it in order to curry votes.

let markets determine how to optimize prioduction, not government policy makers.

HULKSTER · Apr 30, 2003

The IRS is an illegal construct as per the US Constitution. And for all of you "tax defenders" who state that this very same US Constitution gave the right to lawmakers to make amendments to the US Constitution, it further stated that amendments would only be done for the GOOD of the PEOPLE, not just because enough lawmakers got together and conspired to make amendments as THEY saw fit.

Remember the two key words when discussing amendments to the US Constitution: GOOD and PEOPLE

Now, while ending slavery was doing GOOD, for the PEOPLE, was making an amendment to the US Constitution for the collection of federal income tax?

Let's take a look.....

Federal income tax has MOSTLY not been used for good......it has been used to create a permanent, federally-supported and dependent underclass of citizens who will do, say and VOTE how the politicians see fit as long as they make sure the federal government sends Welfare receipents (or should I say Welfare addicts) their monthly dose of money. Furthermore, federal income tax has been used to prop up numeous bureaucratic, federal agencies that do NO GOOD, but EVIL, by US citizens by eroding their freedoms and Constitutional rights (DEA has taken away citizens right to their own bodies, FBI/ATF have essentially stripped away American citizens' right to bear arms and form militias. And for those who say that it's the politicians who pass the laws, and the federal government agencies just enforce them---wake up!!! Laws are nothing but words on paper. It is the federal agencies who are necessary to enforce those laws; without them the laws are meaningless. Thus, in the end, the FBI, DEA and ATF wield much more power than the politicians who stand around and make speeches and laws.

In addition, all of the BILLIONS that have been generated by the federal goverment by way of federal income tax have also led the US to becoming a nosy, belligerent "policeman of the world". The US no longer fights wars against countries that threaten our citizens safety and freedoms. Instead, the VAST MAJORITY of the "wars" and other military roles of the US military in the last 50 years have been bullshit POLITICAL wars meant on controlling the lives of other people in the world. Case in point---KOREAN WAR, VIETNAM WAR, CAMBODIA, LEBANON, HAITI, SOMALIA, KOSOVO, GULF WAR I and GULF WAR II. Those wars were not fought to protect the safety of American citizens, let alone, these wars were started BY THE US! No country attacked us, or threatened the safety of US citizens, and yet we just attacked those countries without regard to morales or justice.

Case in point:

GULF WAR I: Fought over oil; if you really think that Bush Sr. gave a fuck about the people of Kuwait, and not oil, in Gulf War I---YOU ARE A MORON.

GULF WAR II: No proof whatsoever has been discovered linking Al Quada terrorists with Iraq; at best, the US government has only come up with a few rumors or baseless leads that have all turned out to be false. BTW, NO WMD have been found!! Saddam, AS HE SAID, destroyed or got rid of them all before the US attacked. The US was determined to attack Iraq and steal it's oil no matter what.

KOREAN WAR, VIETNAM WAR, CAMBODIA:

All fought against communist countries because they didn't share the US' capitalist ideals. Not because they attacked, or even threatened, US citizens---just because they were a threat to the rich, powerful capitalist assholes who control the federal government and industrial complex in the US.

LEBANON, KOSOVO, HAITI and SOMALIA:

Both REPUBLICANS (Lebanon/Reagan) and DEMOCRATS (Clinton/Kosova, Haiti and Somalia) think that the US military should be used for nation building and setting up, and knocking down, puppet governments whenever they defy us in any way. Once again, the people/militaries of Lebanon, Kosovo,Haitia and Somalia didn't attack or threaten us in any way. Furthermore, for those who state Lebanon and the 300 marines killed---guess what? Those were causalities of war. You cannot have expected the Lebanonese to let an invading US force occupy their country, and sit there and do nothing about it. Especially when the Lebanese hadn't previously attacked or threatened the US---JUST ISRAEL.

bwood · Apr 30, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
I guess I could sum it up like this:

So government instrusions into the market are OK when you benefit, and you use the euphemism "optimizing prodcution" for what is really "imposing additional costs on businesses".

But when the government helps poor people, it is "welfare", "the dole" etc.

The ideas behind these "optimizing production" laws are the same as the idea behind welfare, income tax, etc.: take money from rich people (or businesses) and redistribute it in order to curry votes.

let markets determine how to optimize prioduction, not government policy makers.

you are right about currying votes (even more so for the poor however due to the weight of the fed bureaucracy that supports them), but i strongly feel that you cannot ignore the positive effect that promoting a strong middle class has on your ability to do business and enjoy your riches...

i am on your side, i dont hate the rich and intend to become one of them myself...unlike most of law student ilk...
or at least, i dont hide behind a veneer of hypocritical liberal speak...(not referring to you)

i am for minimal regulation...i wish it was possible...unchecked greed is not viable...

the great depression (caused by fraud) , more currently enron, shows the impossibility of this...

both these events were caused by rabid, unchecked capitalism (never tell 2Thick that i said that), hurt the rich (that didnt directly benefit) by their resulting negative impacts on the economy and reduction in production by decreasing stability and consumer confidence...

but remember my henry ford analysis...stability of the family equals efficency in the workforce that allowed him to become
very wealthy and had the effect of providing a lot of opportunity for others...

think of the companies that produced tires, leather for the seats, paint for the cars; made the owners very wealthy and also created more opportunity for others...

contrast this with the early 1900's coalmines or the meatpacking industry in sinclair's "the jungle"...

your analysis works in the context of company towns with menial labor that virtually enslaved a class of people...

the flaw in your reasoning is equating that THOUGHTLESS work with modern fields such a info tech, computer tech, medicine, law, etc...

a miner or meatpacker could drop dead and be easily replaced; in economic terms...

do you know how much training is involved in becoming a mercedes-benz technician???

the fields, i mentioned above (law,computer, info, med) require a lengthy education and a stable environment and cannot be argued to be menial style labor...

these people are a benefit to the rich and are not easily replaceable, and most importantly are DRIVEN by their quest for a better life...

the intelligence and drive required by the above fields leads to instability that hurts the rich, if not suitably channeled and rewarded...
think lenin, marx, castro...revolutions only possible due to the discontent of the intelligent masses (the people capable of organizing
and carrying out such a revolution and setting up the resulting totalitarian government)...the classic idle hands analysis...
basically, just a changing of who is rich and in charge, BUT with a ripple effect of reducing production, opportunity, education, etc.
to the point where being rich in russia was equivocal to being upper middle class in america and being anything else was equivocal to being on welfare (due to the amount of consumable goods and opportunity available)...

the planning and stability that professional fields provide for the rich by the efficient flow of information, orderly administration of law is a direct benefit...

ask your staff about the fed rules of civ pro and ask their opinion about doing interstate business without them...it would very negatively impact your business

or how much more would you have to pay your staff if the number of lawyers was radically reduced by [lack of infrastructure (no roads/schools), lack of family stability (parents died in coal mine type hazardous work conditions;parents died from lack of adequate medical care)]...

or perhaps you wouldnt have a staff as insurance is mainly needed to protect the fruits of the middle class' labor...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
everything i argue is based on maximizing production...this is what allows the tiny island nation of japan to compete with
the us globally...

my argument is that, due to economies of scale, the rich strongly benefit from this...

due to the resulting stability, the rich benefit in quality of life...(consider, would you drive a drop top mercedes in a middle class neighborhood or in watts???)

luxury items are more abundant and "cheaper" for the rich to purchase...(how much would it cost you to have only one SLK 320 built???)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

your best argument for welfare is the placation one...

we must placate the poor or the prison population will explode...

i do not believe in appeasement that does not favor production...

my best arguments against this view are:
in prison, they will not breed and produce more of themselves...
as their number in prison increases, conditions will worsen and encourage others to change their behavior...
and, is prison really more expensive than the long term costs of the welfare system???

i dont think so...and i think welfare is ultimately more cruel and opportunity limiting and expensive...
think indian reservations...
public housing projects...
austrailian aboriginees...

we both want the same thing ultimately...

more opportunity...

the govt cannot provide it by subsidizing nonproduction interests...
the govt can provide it by taking actions that ultimately increase production so that more opportunities arise in the market place...

i honestly cannot think of a scenario where increasing production
in the manner i address, would fail to increase overall opportunity...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

ok, matt, no more...

you have been a worthy adversary...

props to you...

Testosterone boy · Apr 30, 2003

Bwood.......sometimes these huge essays will work against people who place a value on their time. He may be inclined to say "hmmmm....I could win a lawsuit with the same amount of work as continuing this debate."

We will see.

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 30, 2003

Testosterone boy said:
Bwood.......sometimes these huge essays will work against people who place a value on their time. He may be inclined to say "hmmmm....I could win a lawsuit with the same amount of work as continuing this debate."

We will see.

Hee hee. I can get people to do that for me.

It's always good to hear other people's opinions. It's nice of bwood to take the time to write.

The point is, (and many people missed this), everyone is on the dole in one sense or another, as businesses get considerable tax breaks and other advantages. Rich people own businesses.

Our society as it stands now is a government construct. Unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy,which is defacto socialism. Government checks on businesses are what keeps the economy productive.

If everything is owned by one entity, or a handful, as in oligarchy, then how is that different from socialism? It isn't. It's the same: the absence of competition, and the application of top-down across the board solutions, 2 of the hallmarks of socialism.

unchecked capitalism becomes socialism

The middle class is the result of the government's protections against oligarchy. These protections include anti-trust legislation, legislation against monopoly, income tax, etc. Without government interaction, there would be no middle class. There would be rulers, and ruled. That's it. Oligarchs could squash competition. (Think of a few big monopolies in a few industries)

Thus, the middle class is an artifical construct. So are welfare parasites; each is created by government policy. It really pisses me off when middle class people say that welfare recipients are bankrutping the system, as middle class benefits enjoy a status other than poverty strictly through government intervention.

Is a middle class good for scoiety? Yes. Moderated capitalism is better than oligarchy. But each segmentof society is equally artificial, andneither should criticize the other, as they'd meld together if government restrictions were removed.

bwood · Apr 30, 2003

i unconditionally 98% agree...

short enough for ya TB???

Testosterone boy · Apr 30, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
Hee hee. I can get people to do that for me.

It's always good to hear other people's opinions. It's nice of bwood to take the time to write.

The point is, (and many people missed this), everyone is on the dole in one sense or another, as businesses get considerable tax breaks and other advantages. Rich people own businesses.

Our society as it stands now is a government construct. Unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy,which is defacto socialism. Government checks on businesses are what keeps the economy productive.

If everything is owned by one entity, or a handful, as in oligarchy, then how is that different from socialism? It isn't. It's the same: the absence of competition, and the application of top-down across the board solutions, 2 of the hallmarks of socialism.

unchecked capitalism becomes socialism

The middle class is the result of the government's protections against oligarchy. These protections include anti-trust legislation, legislation against monopoly, income tax, etc. Without government interaction, there would be no middle class. There would be rulers, and ruled. That's it. Oligarchs could squash competition. (Think of a few big monopolies in a few industries)

Thus, the middle class is an artifical construct. So are welfare parasites; each is created by government policy. It really pisses me off when middle class people say that welfare recipients are bankrutping the system, as middle class benefits enjoy a status other than poverty strictly through government intervention.

Is a middle class good for scoiety? Yes. Moderated capitalism is better than oligarchy. But each segmentof society is equally artificial, andneither should criticize the other, as they'd meld together if government restrictions were removed.

You make some very interesting and apparently valid points that I had never been exposed to. Thanks!

bwood · Apr 30, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
The point is, (and many people missed this), everyone is on the dole in one sense or another, as businesses get considerable tax breaks and other advantages. Rich people own businesses.

Our society as it stands now is a government construct. Unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy,which is defacto socialism. Government checks on businesses are what keeps the economy productive.

If everything is owned by one entity, or a handful, as in oligarchy, then how is that different from socialism? It isn't. It's the same: the absence of competition, and the application of top-down across the board solutions, 2 of the hallmarks of socialism.

unchecked capitalism becomes socialism

The middle class is the result of the government's protections against oligarchy. These protections include anti-trust legislation, legislation against monopoly, income tax, etc. Without government interaction, there would be no middle class. There would be rulers, and ruled. That's it. Oligarchs could squash competition. (Think of a few big monopolies in a few industries)

Thus, the middle class is an artifical construct. So are welfare parasites; each is created by government policy. It really pisses me off when middle class people say that welfare recipients are bankrutping the system, as middle class benefits enjoy a status other than poverty strictly through government intervention.

Is a middle class good for scoiety? Yes. Moderated capitalism is better than oligarchy. But each segmentof society is equally artificial, andneither should criticize the other, as they'd meld together if government restrictions were removed.

but by your definition...the rich are a construct of the government
too...

without the government to protect the rich from mob rule by penalties and the inducement of reward, we would be reduced
to anarchy...

sierra leone is a good example...being rich there consists of having a workable ak-47, i would imagine...

makes me wonder if it isnt a govt policy to induce middle class hatred of the poor to keep the middle class from excessively hating the rich...

i should be studying...

Testosterone boy · Apr 30, 2003

bwood said:
i unconditionally 98% agree...

short enough for ya TB???

I surrender would have been more succinct.

Nice lil battle though, one of the best I've seen.

MattTheSkywalker · Apr 30, 2003

Testosterone boy said:
I surrender would have been more succinct.

Nice lil battle though, one of the best I've seen.

good posts all around.

bwood · Apr 30, 2003

Testosterone boy said:
I surrender would have been more succinct.

Nice lil battle though, one of the best I've seen.

surrender???

you feckless heathen...

we agree on the economics...

we disagree on the means of pursuing equity...

to some degree...

this isnt a win or lose battle...

both sides have positives and negatives...

just a philosophical difference... :fro:

Lao Tzu · Apr 30, 2003

bwood said:
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution
made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system...

it has been a downhill trip ever since...

the entitlement mentality created by liberals is the crux of the problem...

That makes no sense. The US, along with the rest of the world, has grown drastically in regards to scientific knowledge, industrial productivity & extra money in the last 100 years. What are you basing these statements that 'society has been going downhill for the last 80 years' from? It makes no sense.

bwood said:
remember, all the goods you ship in, have probably been produced by a welfare receiving middle class in another country...enjoy your wealth...and your michelin necktie...

Actually the poor would do that. Poor people (people who make under $10 an hour) are going to be the ones involved in service industries or many manufacturing industries.

bwood said:
think henry ford, he knew to maximize production by paying more
and providing decent working conditions that promoted stability in his workers families...without governent intervention...
and his genius provided opportunity for how many others???
if only we had welfare back then...we'd probably still be riding horses...

Again, this makes no sense. I once read that the world has discovered & applied more knowledge of science, medicine, engineering, industry, etc. in the last 50 years than all of humanity up until 1950. So the statement that welfare systems pose a threat to scientific, industrial or engineering development doesn't make any sense. Why are all these things working at record paces in the first world when the first world is a de facto welfare system with subsidized housing, college, food, unions, minimum wage laws & grants?

Besides, Henry Ford was coerced by the Wagner Act to make a deal with Unions.

WHat happened with Ford is more of a justification for what Matt said than what you are saying. Ford busted unions and everyone was poor until the Wagner Act restrained ford, changing a single ogliarchy with strong power over poor people to a weaker ogliarchy with weaker power over working class people.

atlantabiolab · Apr 30, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
The point is, (and many people missed this), everyone is on the dole in one sense or another, as businesses get considerable tax breaks and other advantages. Rich people own businesses.

Our society as it stands now is a government construct. Unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy,which is defacto socialism. Government checks on businesses are what keeps the economy productive.

If everything is owned by one entity, or a handful, as in oligarchy, then how is that different from socialism? It isn't. It's the same: the absence of competition, and the application of top-down across the board solutions, 2 of the hallmarks of socialism.

unchecked capitalism becomes socialism

The middle class is the result of the government's protections against oligarchy. These protections include anti-trust legislation, legislation against monopoly, income tax, etc. Without government interaction, there would be no middle class. There would be rulers, and ruled. That's it. Oligarchs could squash competition. (Think of a few big monopolies in a few industries)

Thus, the middle class is an artifical construct. So are welfare parasites; each is created by government policy. It really pisses me off when middle class people say that welfare recipients are bankrutping the system, as middle class benefits enjoy a status other than poverty strictly through government intervention.

Is a middle class good for scoiety? Yes. Moderated capitalism is better than oligarchy. But each segmentof society is equally artificial, andneither should criticize the other, as they'd meld together if government restrictions were removed.

Your argument is not correct, since government influence is what has allowed corporations to morph into monsters. Take a look at the classic anti-trust case of Standard Oil, where the government and various oil companies that used government to dismantle Standard Oil, claimed that S. Oil was monopolistic and prevented free-market competition. There were over 100 oil companies during that time! Rockefeller was simply better than the other companies and they lesser companies used government to break up his company.

Standard Oil was punished for dropping the price of oil more then half, by buying up competitors in order to gain greater economies of scale -- as their market grew they were able to achieve greater economies of scale, and thus lower their production costs, and thus lower their prices, while increasing their profits. Of course, by taking over inefficient refineries and charging lower prices, their inefficient competitors were unable to compete successfully (i.e., they were free to enter the market and compete, but because they were not as productive they could not 'win'), and so under antitrust 'Standard Oil' was punished for being too successful.

Writes Dominick Armentano [professor of economics at the University of Hartford],

The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market — and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly."

For a better analyses of what government intervention in the free-market system can do, look at the massive disregard of justice and abuse of power with the railroad industry, who utilized the government to acheive an end.

True capitalism has not been attempted in the US and to equate what we have as being "capitalism" is not correct, we have a "mixed economy".

manny78 · Apr 30, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
I am fucking sick of subsidizing the middle class's bad decisions. These people work 9 hour days and go home to their wives, or go out drinking with their friends on weekends, while some of us work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, write books, make business deals....and I am fucking sick of paying for their laziness and slovenly lifestyle.
[/B]

humm and what about those making 500k a year and still enjoying life ? The one making so much money aren't busting their ass 16 hours a day, 7/7. You must be the exception I guess.

collegiateLifter · Apr 30, 2003

god theres a lot of half truths and half arguements runnnin around here.

Anyway i hope the supreme court still has some balls. I recall a case in the past where someone was convicted of treason and lost US citizenship. Supreme court said that the government doesn't have the power to nullify citizenship though.... PATRIOT act thinks differently it seems

DealsMorte · Apr 30, 2003

rsnoble said:
Yes, it was well thought out. I don't need to write 1300 paragraphs just to get that kinda response from you Bush supporters. So "fuck 'em all" pretty much sums it up without wasting my time or yours.

rsnoble for president!

Testosterone boy · May 1, 2003

atlantabiolab said:
Your argument is not correct, since government influence is what has allowed corporations to morph into monsters. Take a look at the classic anti-trust case of Standard Oil, where the government and various oil companies that used government to dismantle Standard Oil, claimed that S. Oil was monopolistic and prevented free-market competition. There were over 100 oil companies during that time! Rockefeller was simply better than the other companies and they lesser companies used government to break up his company.

For a better analyses of what government intervention in the free-market system can do, look at the massive disregard of justice and abuse of power with the railroad industry, who utilized the government to acheive an end.

True capitalism has not been attempted in the US and to equate what we have as being "capitalism" is not correct, we have a "mixed economy".

Let me ask you ask you this ABL, what would you advise our government to do if you had total control for a few years?

MattTheSkywalker · May 1, 2003

atlantabiolab said:
Your argument is not correct, since government influence is what has allowed corporations to morph into monsters. Take a look at the classic anti-trust case of Standard Oil, where the government and various oil companies that used government to dismantle Standard Oil, claimed that S. Oil was monopolistic and prevented free-market competition. There were over 100 oil companies during that time! Rockefeller was simply better than the other companies and they lesser companies used government to break up his company.

I didn;t say that corporations were monsters. I said that unchecked, capitalism becomes oligarchy. Don't extrapolate. Standard definitely lowered the price of kerosene and increased its availability. This was in large part due to competition.

Competitors influencing the government to break up Standard is irrelevant to my point about unchecked capitalism --->oligarchy.

[quoet]
For a better analyses of what government intervention in the free-market system can do, look at the massive disregard of justice and abuse of power with the railroad industry, who utilized the government to acheive an end.

True capitalism has not been attempted in the US and to equate what we have as being "capitalism" is not correct, we have a "mixed economy". [/QUOTE]

Again, I never said we have pure capitalism. I alluded to business in about 1900, when there were fewer government restrictions on employers.

A mixed economy may be the best solution. Oligarchy = fascism.

atlantabiolab · May 1, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
I didn;t say that corporations were monsters. I said that unchecked, capitalism becomes oligarchy. Don't extrapolate. Standard definitely lowered the price of kerosene and increased its availability. This was in large part due to competition.

Competitors influencing the government to break up Standard is irrelevant to my point about unchecked capitalism --->oligarchy.

Again, I never said we have pure capitalism. I alluded to business in about 1900, when there were fewer government restrictions on employers.

A mixed economy may be the best solution. Oligarchy = fascism. [/B]

This concept is derived from Marxists, who argued that in a purely capitalist economy, you would eventually have one or very few mega corporations/businesses that would control all of the means of production, employing and "exploiting" all of the proletariats. So, those who dislike capitalism and favor socialism have utilized this theory to promote socialism under the guise of preventing fascism: to prevent an oligarchy of corporations, we should create a oligarchy of government protected corporations.

Historically, the evidence of anti-trust cases does not support suppression of free market competition, until the government steps in: examples -AT&T, the US Postal System, both being monopolistic, because of government favoritism. The anti-trust cases have a history of simply punishing "success", not protection of the consumer.

Maybe it would end up this way, but we don't have enough evidence since we have never had a truly capitalistic economy, and the little evidence we have points against this.

Testosterone boy · May 1, 2003

Shit.....maybe I better go back to shool so I can chat with with big boys.

Fonz · May 1, 2003

MattTheSkywalker said:
I didn;t say that corporations were monsters. I said that unchecked, capitalism becomes oligarchy. Don't extrapolate. Standard definitely lowered the price of kerosene and increased its availability. This was in large part due to competition.

Competitors influencing the government to break up Standard is irrelevant to my point about unchecked capitalism --->oligarchy.

[quoet]
For a better analyses of what government intervention in the free-market system can do, look at the massive disregard of justice and abuse of power with the railroad industry, who utilized the government to acheive an end.

True capitalism has not been attempted in the US and to equate what we have as being "capitalism" is not correct, we have a "mixed economy".

Again, I never said we have pure capitalism. I alluded to business in about 1900, when there were fewer government restrictions on employers.

A mixed economy may be the best solution. Oligarchy = fascism. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oligarchy = fascism?

I think you've been hit on your head one too many times matt.

I'll let you edit oligarchy to monopoly and i won't flame yo to the consistency of charcoal.

Tsk Tsk....amateurs.

Fonz

Testosterone boy · May 1, 2003

Fonz said:
Again, I never said we have pure capitalism. I alluded to business in about 1900, when there were fewer government restrictions on employers.

A mixed economy may be the best solution. Oligarchy = fascism.

Oligarchy = fascism?

I think you've been hit on your head one too many times matt.

I'll let you edit oligarchy to monopoly and i won't flame yo to the consistency of charcoal.

Tsk Tsk....amateurs.

Fonz [/B][/QUOTE]

Your head is cashing checks that your brain can't write.

Matt is referring to a few companies owning all business interests, not a few companies making the same product. Perhaps he should have coined a phrase like "national oligarchal domination of all economic interests". Something like that.

He just assumed that everybody would know this.

Fonz · May 1, 2003

Testosterone boy said:
Oligarchy = fascism?

I think you've been hit on your head one too many times matt.

I'll let you edit oligarchy to monopoly and i won't flame yo to the consistency of charcoal.

Tsk Tsk....amateurs.

Fonz

Your head is cashing checks that your brain can't write.

Matt is referring to a few companies owning all business interests, not a few companies making the same product. Perhaps he should have coined a phrase like "national oligarchal domination of all economic interests". Something like that.

He just assumed that everybody would know this. [/B][/QUOTE]

I was being sarcastic to get my name in the thread........YAY for me.

I kind of lost interest after the 2nd page.

Politics gets UBER boring after a while.

Fonz

Testosterone boy · May 1, 2003

Fonz said:
Your head is cashing checks that your brain can't write.

Matt is referring to a few companies owning all business interests, not a few companies making the same product. Perhaps he should have coined a phrase like "national oligarchal domination of all economic interests". Something like that.

He just assumed that everybody would know this.

I was being sarcastic to get my name in the thread........YAY for me.

I kind of lost interest after the 2nd page.

Politics gets UBER boring after a while.

Fonz [/B][/QUOTE]

OK but this is ecopolitics.....not just votes and money(politics).

John Ashcroft

New member

HULKSTER

Guest

New member

Banned

DcupSheepNipples

Guest

Frackal

Guest

New member

New member

New member

Elite Mentor

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Banned

New member

Elite Mentor

New member

New member

New member

New member

Elite Mentor

New member

New member

Banned

Banned

Elite Mentor

Elite Mentor

New member

Banned

Elite Mentor

Banned

New member

Elite Mentor

New member

"Q"

New member

"Q"

New member

New member

New member

New member

Elite Mentor

"Q"

Banned

"Q"

Banned

New member

Banned

New member

Elite Mentor

HULKSTER

Guest

Banned

New member

Elite Mentor

Banned

New member

Banned

New member

Elite Mentor

Banned

New member

New member

Plat Hero

New member

New member

New member

Elite Mentor

New member

New member

"Q"

New member

"Q"