Who should be sacrificed for the common good?

[percysunshine]

What set of circumstances enabled some people to have far more money than other people ?

I suspect it requires a sense of humor.

 

[Rozman]

If you think people should sacrifice for the common good, wouldnt a good place be to start with yourself?

And if you think that ending Unconstitutional regulations is going to hurt anyone but the corrupt, then you need to read more.

what makes safety regulations unconstitutional?

Not against safety regulations per say but when government puts up so many roadblocks for the sole purpose of stopping enterprise that's what I have a problem with.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You tell us, you're the one fixated on the "common good".

Tell us big guy, who should be thrown off the cliff so you can have free __________

Talk Radio has misframed the issue.

It's not about stealing from one group in order to give to another (even though our current subsidy-&-bailout system steals from the taxpayer to give to corporations).

[FYI: Reagan largely reversed welfare from the poor to corporations]

The questions is this: do we want to live in the kind of society which bails the Reagan family out?

During the depression Reagan's father was jobless and unable to take care of his family.

FDR gave him government assistance.

FDR saw it as an investment in the American people -- and you might agree that the investment paid off. He didn't think the Reagans were welfare queens. He believed that if poverty destroyed fewer people, than more people would go on to lead productive lives -- and this would raise the level of competitive excellence in the country: FDR didn't want to leave men like Ronald Reagan crushed by poverty, untapped. Just as we pay taxes to invest in roads and bridges (which are necessary for commerce), we pay taxes to invest in the solvency of the middle class consumer, whose productivity and consumption are necessary for a healthy economy.

America loses when we have a group of offshore billionaires who make more money than they or their heirs could ever spend, while a growing population of working poor require debilitating debt just to afford medicine and education. When your distribution system leaves too many hard workers in dire poverty, the country eventually suffers because too many people can no longer afford to consume. In 3rd world countries, this is not a problem because their economy doesn't not depend on domestic consumption. The American economy is different: it was built by high levels of middle class consumption, which consumption was made possible because the government made sure that middle class wages and benefits were tied to economic growth. Unfortunately, these mechanisms were removed in order to make the rich richer. As a result, we had to put middle class consumption on Master Cards and Visas: this destroyed us. Meanwhile, there is so much money on top that Wall Street has to invent derivative ponzi schemes just to handle the disproportionate demand for high returns. This kind of distribution system is toxic.

Back to the essential point about the free loader myth: FDR bailed Ronald Reagan out because we benefit when good Americans are not destroyed by poverty. If we invest in Reagan's Star Wars, and if we invest in (subsidize) companies who ship jobs overseas, and if we invest in bailing out the S&Ls and AIGs, than we can invest in the solvency of the middle class. It's not a hand out, unless you listen to talk radio. We don't want to leave the next potential Ronald Reagan crushed by poverty. We want to invest in our most valuable resource. You've been lied to by professional agitators.

That's fine and dandy. FDR's programs were designed to get people back on their feet while the economy recovered. Once the private sector recovered the temporary government jobs went away and workers went over to the private sector.
Fast forward to today. Welfare and other social entitlements have created a permanent underclass of people who from the time they wake up in the early afternoon until they finally pass out onto what resembles a bed, have their hand stuck out and their lips planted firmly on the taxpayer tit.
Don't tell me these people don't exist and don't hand me any shit about stereotypes.

 

[Londoner]

What set of circumstances enabled some people to have far more money than other people ?

Easy. Let's pretend that all of us sell one of two things on the market. 1) labor or 2) goods.

Government protects those who sell goods. For instance, pharmaceutical companies, because they own Washington, have paid for protection against foreign drug makers. This is why Americans pay the highest drug prices on the planet -- because government is owned by corporations who pay for monopoly privileges over American markets, and maximum control over labor. Workers, on the other hand, must compete against foreign labor markets (see Globalization). When a labor market is too expensive in Alabama, capital shifts production to the 3rd world until Alabama's workforce will accept 3rd world compensation, thus competing for the right to win production jobs back. Not so for the owners, who are protected from competition.

The inequality in distribution that we see today does not exist because of a free market. It exists because capital bribed Washington to sell labor down river. When they say "It's my money, I earned it", I laugh. The American distribution system has been carefully constructed to benefit one group over another. There is nothing free about it. Lobbyists don't spend billions a year for fun. They are rigging the market and distribution system in their favor.

 

[dilloduck]

What set of circumstances enabled some people to have far more money than other people ?

Easy. Let's pretend that all of us sell one of two things on the market. 1) labor or 2) goods.

Government protects those who sell goods. For instance, pharmaceutical companies, because they own Washington, have paid for protection against foreign drug makers. This is why Americans pay the highest drug prices on the planet -- because government is owned by corporations who pay for monopoly privileges over American markets. Workers, on the other hand must compete against foreign labor markets (see Globalization). When a labor market is too expensive in Alabama, capital shifts production to the 3rd world until Alabama's workforce will accept 3rd world compensation. Not so for the owners, who are protected from competition.

The inequality in distribution that we see today does not exist because of a free market. It exists because capital bribed Washington to sell labor down river. When they say "It's my money, I earned it", I laugh. This distribution system has been carefully constructed to benefit one group over another. There is nothing free about it.

Seems like the smart thing to do then would be to choose to be something other than a laborer.

 

[shintao]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

I think we are going to disagree on this one. Workers chose the environment they will work in, like a smokers choses a brand of cigarettes.

We need "0" regulations, and let workers sue without a cap on damages. I am sure a jury will know what to do with a corporation who harms workers, as should consumers. We have these mechanisms built into our system to protect us, yet we chose to be lazy and let government regulate corporations that we pay Trillions of taxes for, to annually to do.

 

[percysunshine]

shintao; We need "0" regulations.....


Have you been into the mushroom cabinet again? Chuckle...

 

[shintao]

Not at all. If you had actually worked for a living you would know that virtual all work is dangerous if not for workplace safety codes.

That is absolute nonsense.

Using this logic, we should also have the government create homeplace safety codes

You mean like building codes and banning lead-based materials?

It is good to know about lead based products. What is bad is to regulate corporations and make me pay to see they do not add lead anymore. Once the discovery is made, people exposed know they have been harmed and can sue in a court and win a judgement crippling the corporation. Other corporations seeing this, will regulate themselves or face the same mishap.

Take asbestos for instance. Millions won judgements against these manufactures, and crippled them. Other corporations started making a different product to replace it.

 

[Avorysuds]

Gotta love it.

Conservatives are all about deregulation..until one of their own family gets hurt.

Then they get all Liberal...

Deregulated what in this case? Do you guys even know what you're talking about or do you just attack to attack... like a horny dog humps a leg...

 

[Agit8r]

That is absolute nonsense.

Using this logic, we should also have the government create homeplace safety codes

You mean like building codes and banning lead-based materials?

It is good to know about lead based products. What is bad is to regulate corporations and make me pay to see they do not add lead anymore. Once the discovery is made, people exposed know they have been harmed and can sue in a court and win a judgement crippling the corporation. Other corporations seeing this, will regulate themselves or face the same mishap.

Take asbestos for instance. Millions won judgements against these manufactures, and crippled them. Other corporations started making a different product to replace it.

The DISCOVERY... that lead is harmful?

"The first Thing I remember of this kind, was a general discourse in Boston when I was a Boy, of a Complaint from North Carolina against New England Rum, that it poison'd their People, giving them the Dry Bellyach, with a Loss of the Use of their Limbs. The Distilleries being examin'd on the Occasion, it was found that several of them used leaden Still-heads and Worms, and the Physicians were of the Opinion that the Mischief was occasion'd by that Use of Lead. The Legislature of the Massachusetts thereupon pass'd an Act prohibiting under severe Penalties the Use of such Still-heads & Worms thereafter"

-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Benjamin Vaughan (July 31, 1786)

 

[WillowTree]

shintao; We need "0" regulations.....


Have you been into the mushroom cabinet again? Chuckle...

he is a mushroom, sitting in a dark cave up to his eyeballs in batshit,,

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Politicians. French Revolution style.

 

[Agit8r]

Politicians. French Revolution style.

Liberté égalité fraternité ou la mort, eh?

 

[Intense]

Live and let Live. Why be so quick to become the Oppressor???

 

[shintao]

If you think people should sacrifice for the common good, wouldnt a good place be to start with yourself?

And if you think that ending Unconstitutional regulations is going to hurt anyone but the corrupt, then you need to read more.

I see you haven't been reading what I post, which is understandable. But regulations hurt you more than a corporation, because you are the one taxed to enforce compliance, do inspections, etc. Several trillion a year Avatar.


Shouldn't we all be sacrificed equally for the common good? And equally, I mean we should all pay the same amount of taxes, not the same percentage of taxes.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Politicians. French Revolution style.

Liberté égalité fraternité ou la mort, eh?

Condemning the politicians as a corollary to make the citizens choose who lives must be saved is a strange paradox?

 

[Agit8r]

Politicians. French Revolution style.

Liberté égalité fraternité ou la mort, eh?

Condemning the politicians as a corollary to make the citizens choose who lives must be saved is a strange paradox?

wha........?

 

[uscitizen]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

But that is what we have Chinese and illegal immigrants for.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Liberté égalité fraternité ou la mort, eh?

Condemning the politicians as a corollary to make the citizens choose who lives must be saved is a strange paradox?

wha........?

Sorry, I was alluding to your original post/argument of who gets to live or die based on legislation vs the citizens view of politicians.

 

[Agit8r]

Condemning the politicians as a corollary to make the citizens choose who lives must be saved is a strange paradox?

wha........?

Sorry, I was alluding to your original post/argument of who gets to live or die based on legislation vs the citizens view of politicians.

Actually my OP was about who gets to live or die based on whether appropriate regulation is being enforced