Discuss this quote... If you dare?

[Two Thumbs]

I think our central question has been overstepped for far too long.

The central question is: should we rely on the government for the security (economic and literal) of this nation or should we weaken our central government and turn over those responsibilities to monied interests like corporations?

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people.

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. A government can't be removed if they fail at thier jobs. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people. Success is how you make profit, if the people that buy your product or service are unhappy, they will find some one else, thus forcing the private industry to perform at very high standards or lose all profit. The best you can hope for from the government is mediocraty.

And since you are an adult and have had to deal with some form of government you know that true.

Everything centers around balance. Our whole system is designed to be balanced. I don't think the argument is (or should be) whether everything should be run by government or everything run by private interests, any more than everything should be run by the Executive and the other two branches can go fly a kite. The two act, or should act, as a check on each other's extremes and abuses.

Only extremists want all or nothing, by definition. The argument is (or should be) more about the balance between public and private and whether the current proportions are the correct ones to create an efficient, functional system that addresses the current needs of the State and of the People.

Obviously we're not necessarily going to agree on where the balance should lie. But failing to recognize the inherent value of balance and compromise at the expense of the nation is pretty much what Ole Ben was warning against.

That's reasonable (dammit, now I have to be reasonble)

My balance would be a government big enough to enforce the laws, so that when, say a giant corp, got out of control they could put the screws to them. Right now the Fed is so big that it's worth the time and money of the same giant corp to buy our government out.

It's gotten to the point where it's hard to tell who is actually standing for something or just for more of something.

 

[Nosmo King]

I think our central question has been overstepped for far too long.

The central question is: should we rely on the government for the security (economic and literal) of this nation or should we weaken our central government and turn over those responsibilities to monied interests like corporations?

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people.

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. A government can't be removed if they fail at thier jobs. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people. Success is how you make profit, if the people that buy your product or service are unhappy, they will find some one else, thus forcing the private industry to perform at very high standards or lose all profit. The best you can hope for from the government is mediocraty.

And since you are an adult and have had to deal with some form of government you know that true.

Everything centers around balance. Our whole system is designed to be balanced. I don't think the argument is (or should be) whether everything should be run by government or everything run by private interests, any more than everything should be run by the Executive and the other two branches can go fly a kite. The two act, or should act, as a check on each other's extremes and abuses.

Only extremists want all or nothing, by definition. The argument is (or should be) more about the balance between public and private and whether the current proportions are the correct ones to create an efficient, functional system that addresses the current needs of the State and of the People.

Obviously we're not necessarily going to agree on where the balance should lie. But failing to recognize the inherent value of balance and compromise at the expense of the nation is pretty much what Ole Ben was warning against.

When the corporate interests control the government, there can be no balance.

I'm not for all government control, or all corporate control. But I favor government over corporations because there is a system of justice with government. There is a system of profit and loss with corporations.

 

[rightwinger]

Discuss THIS Quote...If you dare!

"A penny saved is a penny earned"

Ben Franklin

 

[goldcatt]

Discuss THIS Quote...If you dare!

"A penny saved is a penny earned"

Ben Franklin

 

[goldcatt]

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. A government can't be removed if they fail at thier jobs. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people. Success is how you make profit, if the people that buy your product or service are unhappy, they will find some one else, thus forcing the private industry to perform at very high standards or lose all profit. The best you can hope for from the government is mediocraty.

And since you are an adult and have had to deal with some form of government you know that true.

Everything centers around balance. Our whole system is designed to be balanced. I don't think the argument is (or should be) whether everything should be run by government or everything run by private interests, any more than everything should be run by the Executive and the other two branches can go fly a kite. The two act, or should act, as a check on each other's extremes and abuses.

Only extremists want all or nothing, by definition. The argument is (or should be) more about the balance between public and private and whether the current proportions are the correct ones to create an efficient, functional system that addresses the current needs of the State and of the People.

Obviously we're not necessarily going to agree on where the balance should lie. But failing to recognize the inherent value of balance and compromise at the expense of the nation is pretty much what Ole Ben was warning against.

When the corporate interests control the government, there can be no balance.

I'm not for all government control, or all corporate control. But I favor government over corporations because there is a system of justice with government. There is a system of profit and loss with corporations.

I agree with you as to the system inherent in corporations. But there are also other private interests. Unions, non-profits, advocacy groups, and some would argue the ultimate private interest is the public.

It's an interesting question, and one that often gets lost in the "government" v. "corporations" argument. What is or should be the role of other private interests generally? Should they be lumped together as one group of entities with the same rights and amount of power or should they each be treated separately on their own merits?

In a similar vein, when we're speaking of "government" are we lumping all segments and levels of government together or should each branch and each level be treated separately?

It's an interesting question, as it pertains to policy debates.

 

[zzzz]

Discuss THIS Quote...If you dare!

"A penny saved is a penny earned"

Ben Franklin

I think this one has more discussion potential.

"He that blows the coals in quarrels that he has nothing to do with, has no right to complain if the sparks fly in his face." Benjamin Franklin

 

[Two Thumbs]

Everything centers around balance. Our whole system is designed to be balanced. I don't think the argument is (or should be) whether everything should be run by government or everything run by private interests, any more than everything should be run by the Executive and the other two branches can go fly a kite. The two act, or should act, as a check on each other's extremes and abuses.

Only extremists want all or nothing, by definition. The argument is (or should be) more about the balance between public and private and whether the current proportions are the correct ones to create an efficient, functional system that addresses the current needs of the State and of the People.

Obviously we're not necessarily going to agree on where the balance should lie. But failing to recognize the inherent value of balance and compromise at the expense of the nation is pretty much what Ole Ben was warning against.

When the corporate interests control the government, there can be no balance.

I'm not for all government control, or all corporate control. But I favor government over corporations because there is a system of justice with government. There is a system of profit and loss with corporations.

I agree with you as to the system inherent in corporations. But there are also other private interests. Unions, non-profits, advocacy groups, and some would argue the ultimate private interest is the public.

It's an interesting question, and one that often gets lost in the "government" v. "corporations" argument. What is or should be the role of other private interests generally? Should they be lumped together as one group of entities with the same rights and amount of power or should they each be treated separately on their own merits?

In a similar vein, when we're speaking of "government" are we lumping all segments and levels of government together or should each branch and each level be treated separately?

It's an interesting question, as it pertains to policy debates.

When I speak of "the government" I'm speaking about the fed, and mostly about the 3 main branches. When I'm speaking about a state I will specify.

Our current government it to large to govern itself. My evidence is all the waste, blatant fraud and constant overspending of the budget. So many of the pols are guilty of something that they can't stop each other from wasting money on something else.

Here's some examples of waste that I know of; (no links, these are personal)

A close marine base got a fresh layer of paint, and yes both sides of the rocks.
$400 toilet seats.
$200 dollar hammers
$800 for a bronze screw driver. We float tested that one, and it didn't pass. It would have taken weeks to get another so we tried the $50 plastic screwdriver (yes, a plastic screwdriver) and that ended as well as you may think. Now you may be pondering; Why the hell do you need a bronze one? Sparking. The company that made the gear convinced the Navy that we needed to use a sparkless driver and bronze doesn't spark.

Now you may be wondering, with baited breath, how we fixed the broken gear. Simple, we took a small, steal $10 driver and melted $.o1 worth of shrinkwrap on it. Worked like a charm.

 

[rightwinger]

Discuss this quote.....If you dare???

"It ain't over till its over"

Yogi

 

[midcan5]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison

"The Republican form of government is the highest form of government: but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature, a type nowhere at present existing." Herbert Spencer

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Thomas Jefferson

"How come we choose from just two people for President, and fifty for Miss America?" Mad magazine


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." George Washington Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech


"To serve contentment, there were and are three basic requirements. One is the need to defend the general limitation on government as regards the economy; there must be a doctrine that offers a feasible presumption against government intervention...The second, more specific need is to find social justification for the untrammeled, uninhibited pursuit and possession of wealth....There is need for demonstration that the pursuit of wealth or even less spectacular well-being serves a serious, even grave social purpose....The third need is to justify a reduced sense of public responsibility for the poor. Those so situated, the members of the functional and socially immobilised underclass, must, in some very real way, be seen as the architects of their own fate. If not, they could be, however marginally, on the conscience of the comfortable." John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment


"Nothing appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular." David Hume 'Of The First Principles Of Government'
Hume: Of the First Principles of Government


"To establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to Nations, would be to take from such Government the most lucrative of its branches." Thomas Paine


"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

>

 

[Nosmo King]

A government can't be removed if they fail at thier jobs. Success is how you make profit, if the people that buy your product or service are unhappy, they will find some one else, thus forcing the private industry to perform at very high standards or lose all profit. The best you can hope for from the government is mediocraty.

And since you are an adult and have had to deal with some form of government you know that true.

CEOs just get huge bonuses and then they get to run yet another company! Who are they truly responsible to if they have no consequences to their errors?

And when a global company "makes" the product, why should they offer better, safer products? They effectively corner the market. Look at Wal*Mart! Why should they commit one thin dime to the communities they serve? They raped the Mom & Pop stores (pharmacies, jewelers, hardware stores, etc.) and then they are the only show in town!

And the government runs the military, the Corps of Engineers, the USEPA and other regulatory agencies responsible for assuring food, drug and transportation safety. I don't expect mediocrity from any of those agencies, and no one should expect mediocrity.

 

[The Infidel]

I think the country would be better off if the states were their own countries.

Less powerful and less likely to go around the world invading everything.

Also open to the idea of maybe not each separate state as they are drawn now being entirely separate but maybe if the US was split into maybe 4 or more parts from what it is now?

Thoughts?

History shows how well that worked for the Greeks and Europe. No, that is not the answer.

All we really need is for gov't to stick to The Constitution... thats all.

Kind of ironic that he was speaking to the constitutional convention

 

[Annie]

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the
anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if
our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can
just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin

I think that Ben was overstating the case.

Anarchy?

There was no state of anarchy in the colonies.

Really? How many colonies had Shays' Rebellion type actions spread to?

 

[Nosmo King]

Discuss this quote.....If you dare???

"It ain't over till its over"

Yogi

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it!" - Yogi

As he was dressed in a white seer sucker suit and met Mayor Laguadia's wife, Mrs. Laguardia commented, "You look very cool in that suit Mr. Berra."

"You don't look so hot yourself, ma'am!"

 

[Two Thumbs]

"A stitch in time saves nine."

Is this a true statement or and evil conspiracy to destroy the thread industry?