"When Is Big Too Big Part II": Another liberal failure.

[Oddball]

Progressive/Fabian slogans, bromides and cliches are definitely not too big to fail.

 

[Tech_Esq]

This thread is an example of why wingnuts are wingnuts. Connecting 'too big to fail' to your partisan ideological economic nonsense is a prime example of idiocy in the extreme. TBTF is a real problem and a separate issue from business behemoths. Businesses can fail and do. TBTF is a modern phenomena that combines banking and gambling, and privatizes profit as it socializes risk.

Who was it exactly who bailed out the banks, and under what administration, and what were the ideas that led to this collapse? Any ideas.

Amazon.com: The Fearful Rise of Markets: Global Bubbles, Synchronized Meltdowns, and How To Prevent Them in the Future…


Amazon.com: Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance (9781594202506): Nouriel Roubini, Stephen Mihm: Books


Amazon.com: How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World (9780465031092): Nathan…



"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith

I agree. Mostly.

I definitely agree with TJ.

I strongly agree with the meaning of AS's quote taken as he meant it.

I also strongly agree with the last quote by AS. It's too bad we don't do that here. We'd be much better off if we did.

 

[Modbert]

It's very well documented. Google it. Why do liberals always need the material directly in front of you to know it? Can't you folks RESEARCH anything??? Well, guess not, no one researched Obama in summer of 08.


Oh, and yes, "YAY FOR US" is OK with me. Is it not for you? Does Wal-Mart FORCE those people in 3rd world countries to work there? Nope. They volunteer to work there. Hey, maybe Wal-Mart should leave those countries and just not offer those jobs, right?

Whats wrong with yay for us? Isn't that what every country on the planet wants, a better life for their people?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCQypnVeXA]YouTube - God Bless The USA by Lee Greenwood[/ame]

 

[Flopper]

This thread is an example of why wingnuts are wingnuts. Connecting 'too big to fail' to your partisan ideological economic nonsense is a prime example of idiocy in the extreme. TBTF is a real problem and a separate issue from business behemoths. Businesses can fail and do. TBTF is a modern phenomena that combines banking and gambling, and privatizes profit as it socializes risk.

Who was it exactly who bailed out the banks, and under what administration, and what were the ideas that led to this collapse? Any ideas.

Amazon.com: The Fearful Rise of Markets: Global Bubbles, Synchronized Meltdowns, and How To Prevent Them in the Future…


Amazon.com: Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance (9781594202506): Nouriel Roubini, Stephen Mihm: Books


Amazon.com: How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World (9780465031092): Nathan…



"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith

Good Post
This thread illustrates that many do not really know the definition of capitalism and socialism.

Big government is constantly sited as a cause of all our problems yet the term big government means different things to different people. Too some it's a government that over regulates. Too others it's a government that spends to much money. Too others it's a government that is not responsive to the needs of the people. And to others, it's a government that robs us of our freedom.

 

[Woyzeck]

This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

Actually, our own president has called for closing the poverty gap in our country. And thats a noble cause.

But isn't it true "poverty" in America isn't really that bad? The "poor" in our country are often fat (food plentiful). They have cars. TV's. Refridgerators and air conditioning. Cable TV. Cell phones. Video games. Microwaves. So, it's all relevant. Poor by USA standards, not by global ones.

So, I suppose my conclusion is this: Our country produces private companies that are richer than many of the entire nations on the planet. Our country produces a lower class of citizens that have AC, TV, microwave, car, cell phone, cable tv, and are obese.

Ain't capitalism grand? So, lets look at long term effects of capitalism vs socialism.

Capitalism in America: Richest nation on Earth, produces companies that are richer within their company than many other nations, a poor class that lives better than 95% of the rest of the world. With our recessions and occassional depressions, I'd say the hurt is far worth the spikes and fruits of this system.

Now, lefties, show me examples in the world of more left leaning, government dominant socialist type nations that produce a better outcome for their people than what we have here? I, for one, am proud to see that companies like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft thrive to such an astounding degree in this nation that they are richer than so many of the other nations on Earth.

And on a final note, some libs said it's not right that a corporation would have so much influence on government decisions. Well, once again, the lefties are showing their desire for a government so strong and large, that neither the people nor the private companies can have any influence.

lolwhut? How is someone below the poverty line have all that? I hope you have a link for this. Out of curiosity, does this statastic include homeless people too?

And of course, the irony of your pride in Wal-Mart as part of providing a better outcome, is that Wal-Mart employs people in third world countries and pays them horrendously low wages. So yeah, they help provide a better outcome for us, while screwing over someone else. Yay for us?

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation

That took like 10 seconds with a google search. You guys gotta learn to research topics and political candidates a bit more.

80%+ of the "poor" in America have air conditioning. Let them whine to the people in Africa about how evil American rich people are now.

Now was that so hard?

It presents some interesting data but raises some questions. For instance the fact that many people classified as 'poor' are obese. But instead of citing information about the quality of the food (unhealthy fattening food is often cheaper then healthy alternatives) it asks if there's enough of it. It also presents a list of materialistic items that all poor households have, but I don't think it mentions credit cards and the like. In fact, in its statistics on finance problems, credit payments aren't listed at all.

Curious enough, it groups data by general products like stereos, color TV (HD would be more of a surprise these days) and air conditioning, and neglects to mention just how cheap some of these items are. I find it a bit odd that they classify color TV and not say, HD. It's more rare to find a black and white television these days than anything. In fact, it doesn't mention the cheapness of anything. Or actually how expensive something is.

The article also downplays that a third of poor households do actually go through the stereotypical things we think of as being poor.

It's very well documented. Google it. Why do liberals always need the material directly in front of you to know it? Can't you folks RESEARCH anything??? Well, guess not, no one researched Obama in summer of 08.

If it's so well-documented, it shouldn't be too much trouble to post what you're getting this information from. This is how it works you know, you make an assertion, someone wants a link of where you got it from, you provide it, otherwise why should I be taking your word for it?

Oh, and yes, "YAY FOR US" is OK with me. Is it not for you? Does Wal-Mart FORCE those people in 3rd world countries to work there? Nope. They volunteer to work there. Hey, maybe Wal-Mart should leave those countries and just not offer those jobs, right?

Whats wrong with yay for us? Isn't that what every country on the planet wants, a better life for their people?

A better life at the expense of other human beings is hardly different from pre-Revolutionary France. The difference is, we've outsourced far and away out of our realm of perception. Wal-Mart does not have a great reputation for providing great and safe jobs in these third world countries. When brought to their attention, they stop doing business with such factories, but Wal-Mart subcontracts to thousands of companies, so there is a small chance they can inspect them all for grave working violations.

Regulating working conditions in foreign countries is a job for the relevant country, not a corporate entity. If they were so bad, I'm sure our country wouldn't agree to do business with them, right? Isn't that really what governments are for, to manage these macro issues? Your blaming Walmart and you should be blaming government.

You need to stop wanting the government to do the things a corporation should do and stop wanting corporations to do things that a government should do. All of this sounds a little more corportist than is reflective of my actual feelings about corporations, but blaming them for all the ills of the world is just silly, stupidity.

I never said it was the job of the government. Please go back and find where I said it was the job of the government to do so. I was criticizing Wal-Mart for its labor practices, and bucs statement that "What's wrong with it? Everybody wants a better life for its people."

 

[MaggieMae]

You know, people used to live here without Air Conditioners. Just sayin'

You don't NEED it. I hear the stories every time I visit with my grandparents. When I first got to DC I lived in a house with no AC and they had the hottest May on record. Over 18 days above 90 degrees. But, I might not be poor enough for you to care.

Not my point. When one can be purchased for $80.00, why not? Twenty years ago the same air conditioner cost $180.00. Now that's different. I would go without and sweat it out--like we did back in the day.

My main point is why shouldn't poor people have things you might consider "luxuries" but which in the real world have become ordinary household items?? I notice in some retort, it was even mentioned that they had microwaves and refrigerators. I mean, puleeze, this is the 21st Century. Poor people should be living as though it were still the early 20th Century and remain in their place on the outside looking in? That seems to be the message I'm getting.

I'm sorry, I'm seeing a very American centric post here. I would suggest you might not be familiar with the "real world". Let me tell you what I've observed. I lived in Germany for 3 years. Germany is supposedly one of the most industrial and advanced countries in Europe. The living accommodations there probably would not meet your standard. I had friends that had to chop wood to heat the water in their water heater. I had an apartment that had a floor made of 2x4s with carpet tiles over it. That's not to say there weren't better places there, but we're talking average.

Now, think what the people in places a little less industrialized than Germany might live in. We're not even talking 3rd world. I'm talking first world. After you consider that, now think what it must be like in the many countries that are third world. Our homeless do better than most people in a third world country. Mildly motivated homeless ppl in DC make over $50k panhandling.

I understand what you're saying, but you're also comparing apples to oranges. By Germany's standards, someone chopping wood for heat is probably considered normal. In the US, it's only considered normal if you live in a rural area. Germany is not the USA, and vice versa, comparing lifestyles from birth forward. A person doing the same job for the same number of hours can earn twice as much in Hawaii as he could in Tennessee, but it also would cost him twice as much to live there. Everything is relative.

 

[MaggieMae]

Progressive/Fabian slogans, bromides and cliches are definitely not too big to fail.

"Progressive/Fabian ... WTF is that if not a bromide of your own clever invention?

 

[Oddball]

Looked the terms up?

They are, after all, the ideology you and your progressive/Fabian socialist brethren wholeheartedly embrace and endorse.

 

[MaggieMae]

Looked the terms up?

They are, after all, the ideology you and your progressive/Fabian socialist brethren wholeheartedly embrace and endorse.

I know what they mean. But only YOU consistently use the term "Fabian," which is odd since they were a small group of 19th Century Englishmen that no one except you, apparently, thinks they were very important.

 

[bucs90]

It's easy to find because the first three pages of Google show the "80% have air conditioning" to be a con talking point of the day, with every right-wing blogger picking up on the same exact story. I looked no further than three pages in Google to counter the argument since that much was clear.

But it really only proves one thing: Every day it's some "new statistic" or hopefully injurious "story" written by someone that takes off among the wide reach of the right wing noise machine, and ultimately filters down to someone posting the subject on message boards like this one. Aren't you people aware that you're suffering from severe tunnel vision?

But back to the subject. Here's a fact for ya: A small window air conditioner costs about $80.00. Big fucking deal. If you're somewhere on the east coast today sweltering in 100+ degree heat and humidity, only I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU assholes would imply that a family should be spending $80.00 on something else instead of deciding to buy a fucking air conditioner.

You know, people used to live here without Air Conditioners. Just sayin'

You don't NEED it. I hear the stories every time I visit with my grandparents. When I first got to DC I lived in a house with no AC and they had the hottest May on record. Over 18 days above 90 degrees. But, I might not be poor enough for you to care.

Not my point. When one can be purchased for $80.00, why not? Twenty years ago the same air conditioner cost $180.00. Now that's different. I would go without and sweat it out--like we did back in the day.

My main point is why shouldn't poor people have things you might consider "luxuries" but which in the real world have become ordinary household items?? I notice in some retort, it was even mentioned that they had microwaves and refrigerators. I mean, puleeze, this is the 21st Century. Poor people should be living as though it were still the early 20th Century and remain in their place on the outside looking in? That seems to be the message I'm getting.

They should have them. And most do. Thats why I love America. Our "poor" are so well taken care of.

But that has to have a limit on it. At some point, the rest of us can't be held hostage to subsidize the others. If a person is on welfare, yet has enough to purchase a plasma TV, something's wrong. If a person is on welfare, gov't housing, gov't school, food stamps, gov't healthcare...........yet has $6,000 in rims on their car and talks on a $600 iphone all day, there is a problem.

MSNBC's Rachael Maddow made a very ironic point, and she was unaware she made it. She was on her trip to Afghanistan, showing how the Afghans are "stepping up" and taking charge of prisons, schools, police stations, roads, etc. She spun the story as "They are stepping up and doing this now because they know we are leaving". Her spin was to imply that by not saying we are leaving, the Afghans never would've stepped up. But since we are, they are stepping up.

How does that relate? Well, when "Big Brother" is always there to take care of you, you never step up and do it yourself. But when you know that free lunch is gonna disappear, all of a sudden you become more motivated and efficient, and productive.

Hmmm. That logic Maddow stated should be applied to our welfare state also.

 

[bucs90]

Now was that so hard?

It presents some interesting data but raises some questions. For instance the fact that many people classified as 'poor' are obese. But instead of citing information about the quality of the food (unhealthy fattening food is often cheaper then healthy alternatives) it asks if there's enough of it. It also presents a list of materialistic items that all poor households have, but I don't think it mentions credit cards and the like. In fact, in its statistics on finance problems, credit payments aren't listed at all.

Curious enough, it groups data by general products like stereos, color TV (HD would be more of a surprise these days) and air conditioning, and neglects to mention just how cheap some of these items are. I find it a bit odd that they classify color TV and not say, HD. It's more rare to find a black and white television these days than anything. In fact, it doesn't mention the cheapness of anything. Or actually how expensive something is.

The article also downplays that a third of poor households do actually go through the stereotypical things we think of as being poor.

.

Regulating working conditions in foreign countries is a job for the relevant country, not a corporate entity. If they were so bad, I'm sure our country wouldn't agree to do business with them, right? Isn't that really what governments are for, to manage these macro issues? Your blaming Walmart and you should be blaming government.



I never said it was the job of the government. Please go back and find where I said it was the job of the government to do so. I was criticizing Wal-Mart for its labor practices, and bucs statement that "What's wrong with it? Everybody wants a better life for its people."

What does it matter if their color TV is HD or not? Is THAT really the true debate amongst the poor these days? Whether their AC unit is central or a window unit? Whether they have HD or jus regular-ass color TV? OH MY GOD I bet the poor are still using flip-phones and not even iphones!!!! The tragedy!!

What I'm saying is the debate of the poverty and income gap in America is for the most part a debate based on envy. Our poor live pretty damn well off compared to the rest of the world.

BUT.............that said, it brings up the next debate. Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, etc, and "R's" like Bush, Graham, etc, have a globalist viewpoint. Obama and his type are "global citizens". So, from their perspective, our "poor" are actually amongst the "rich" because they are Americans. And Americans, all of us, are in fact "rich" by global standards.

We must realize, when the progressives talk about income inequality, poverty, welfare, wealth redistribution, etc, they aren't talking about US poor vs US rich. They are talking the global community taking from US wealth. That ideal is the foundation of the global warming Cap and Trade legislation.

 

[Oddball]

Looked the terms up?

They are, after all, the ideology you and your progressive/Fabian socialist brethren wholeheartedly embrace and endorse.

I know what they mean. But only YOU consistently use the term "Fabian," which is odd since they were a small group of 19th Century Englishmen that no one except you, apparently, thinks they were very important.

They're important in that the willingly naïve, such as yourself, are doing exactly their bidding by cloaking your actions behind the terms "progressive" and "liberal".

Call it manure, poo or guano, it's the same old shit.

 

[bucs90]

Looked the terms up?

They are, after all, the ideology you and your progressive/Fabian socialist brethren wholeheartedly embrace and endorse.

I know what they mean. But only YOU consistently use the term "Fabian," which is odd since they were a small group of 19th Century Englishmen that no one except you, apparently, thinks they were very important.

They're important in that the willingly naïve, such as yourself, are doing exactly their bidding by cloaking your actions behind the terms "progressive" and "liberal".

Call it manure, poo or guano, it's the same old shit.

Left wingers will do just about anything so long as some progressive is publicly telling them it's the right, moral and humane thing to do. Remember, left wing progressive hero FDR is still the only president who actually built internment camps, rounded up US citizens based solely on their race, and detained them without charges or suspicion of any criminal act. The same FDR the left wing voted as the #1 president.

 

[JBeukema]

Looked the terms up?

They are, after all, the ideology you and your progressive/Fabian socialist brethren wholeheartedly embrace and endorse.

I know what they mean. But only YOU consistently use the term "Fabian," which is odd since they were a small group of 19th Century Englishmen that no one except you, apparently, thinks they were very important.

Welcome to the Fabian Society - The Fabian Society ? where the British left thinks