IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New On fairness.
A flat tax would be fair ONLY in an economy that distributes wealth fairly.

I've argued/chatted/disagreed/agreed with you on many things, and I think we have finally struck upon our fundamental difference. If I read what you have posted over the years correctly, you would hold that the American economy distributes wealth fairly and I would argue vociferously that it does nothing of the sort.

Perhaps, among may of our disagreements, we can agree on this fundamental disagreement of perception?

bcnu,
Mikem

New Different definitions of fair.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Re: Different definitions of fair. (more)
If you mean by "fair" that there is opportunity for anyone then I would suppose I would say that I believe the system is "fair".

Can someone make a shitload more money than someone else? Bet your ass...its the American Way (tm).

But why should government attempt to do anything about that situation except fund itself. In other words...why should government take 20 cents from one person and only take 10 from someone else. Thats not >fair<. Thats the government determining that someone is more or less deserving than someone else. Fair is the government treating every dollor of income equally.

I'm all for reducing the burden on those who need the assistance. Thats why I'm more in favor of national sales tax than a flat tax. A national sales tax would allow for the exemption of tax on foodstuffs and clothing...this would achieve the redistribution ideal of keeping the poor from paying a disproportionate amount but would treat everything else evenly.

Why won't this work...because those who think the "rich people" owe them something would argue that since they don't spend everything they have...they wouldn't pay "their fair share".

So, probably the best solution would be a middle ground. A national sales tax, in the low percentages (3-5) combined with a flat tax (no exemptions) on income over a certain amount.

This idea that "rich people" deserve to be punished for success is ludicrous...and is probably the only place I happen to agree with Objectivist theory.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Hasn't a sales tax been proven to be regressive?
That being, it taxes the poor more than the wealthy.

Or did I miss something?
New Thats why you exempt food and clothing.
Apparently you neglected to read the post.

The reason people perceive sales tax as regressive is because the poor spend more of their income on basic goods (food clothing) so a higher percentage of their income is taxed...which is why you exempt those items.



You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New And that makes it non-regressive?
Nope. I read your post. I just want to see you say that a sales tax is non-regressive.

Or to see you put restrictions on it so you can say it is non-regressive.

I'm going to bet that you will refuse to say that simple thing.
New I never made that claim.
By itself, a sales tax, even one that exempts clothing and food, >is< regressive.

However, I did not say that sales tax alone should be used, did I? So why are you even bothering to try and pigeon-hole the argument around it?

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Just wondering why you're advocating it.
Since you seem to agree that it is regressive.
-AND-
You're the one with the big rants about "fairness".

So, why are you even considering a REGRESSIVE tax in your plan?

In fact, combined with the flat tax, the ENTIRE plan you've proposed would be REGRESSIVE.

And you think this is a good idea?
New Entertaining yarn at IRS site.
There are some broken links, but [link|http://www.irs.gov/individuals/display/0,,i1%3D1%26genericId%3D15601,00.html|What is Fair?] is an entertaining yarn. Marlowe might enjoy it. :-)

Regressive taxation has problems. Progressive taxation has problems. Proportional taxation seems appealing (it's aka as a Flat Tax). But (if truly flat) it causes the government to lose control over encouraging or discouraging certain economic actions, so is less appealing to politicians.

A national sales or VAT tax is more appealing if it is simple and transparent. It might or might not be regressive depending on how it is structured. (Just as an income tax isn't automatically progressive, a sales or VAT tax isn't automatically regressive.) If it's not simple and transparent, then it's of little advantage over an income tax, IMO. But the people writing the laws usually have people yelling for exceptions - e.g. the [link|http://www.flatoday.com/legislature/stories/0121prevtaxref.htm|recent difficulties in FL with the state sales tax].

Cheers,
Scott.
New If you insist...
...on being an idiot...don't ask me to assist.

Sales taxes alone are regressive. Exempting necessities reduces the amount by which they are regressive.

Now...why are they regressive? Because >some< people don't spend all of their money.

SO...you add a flat tax on all income over a certain amount. >That< tax would be >progressive<.

Would you mind detailing how a combined system of one regressive and one progressive makes the whole thing regressive? I'm really up for some entertainment...and I'm sure your attempt to explain this will provide that.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New It isn't me that has the problem.
I ask you why you're advocating a tax structure that is regressive.

If you insist......on being an idiot...don't ask me to assist.
So, I'm being an idiot because I'm asking why you're advocating a tax structure that is regressive.

Hard to argue with logic like that.

Sales taxes alone are regressive. Exempting necessities reduces the amount by which they are regressive.
Ummm, regressive is regressive is regressive. Are you saying that regressive is a good thing?

Now...why are they regressive? Because >some< people don't spend all of their money.
Ummmmm, no. They are regressive because the people who make less money pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than people who make more money.

Regressive.

SO...you add a flat tax on all income over a certain amount. >That< tax would be >progressive<.
Ummm, no. That would be a flat tax. Progressive is when, the more you make, the more you pay (percentage).

Would you mind detailing how a combined system of one regressive and one progressive makes the whole thing regressive?
Ah, trick question. Because you've "defined" a "flat tax" as "progressive" does NOT mean it is progressive.

The reason why your proposal is REGRESSIVE is that, once over the exclusion amount (flat tax) you have a simple sales tax. Which is regressive. In other words, if the cut-off is $20K, someone making $25K is going to pay a larger percentage of his income than someone making $1million.

That is what "regressive" means.
New whatever.
Sales tax with exclusions.

Flat tax on income over a threshhold. So people under the threshhold don't pay any flat tax.

And with the exclusions...People who make less spend more on basic necessities such as food and clothing. More of their income would be exempt from this tax. People with more disposable income spend more on things OTHER than basic necessities...meaning MORE of their income is subject to the sales tax. Certainly sounds progressive.

In addition...anyone over the threshhold will be subject to even more tax. Even more progressive.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Target acquired. Proceeding with SLAM!
Regressive != progressive.

Allow me to quote you.

Sales taxes alone are regressive. Exempting necessities reduces the amount by which they are regressive.
So, sales taxes are regressive. You admit it.

And with the exclusions...People who make less spend more on basic necessities such as food and clothing. More of their income would be exempt from this tax. People with more disposable income spend more on things OTHER than basic necessities...meaning MORE of their income is subject to the sales tax. Certainly sounds progressive.
So, sales taxes are progressive. You admit it.

So, in one posting you admit that, even with the exclusions, sales taxes are regressive.

Yet, in another posting, you claim that, because of the exclusions, sales taxes are progressive.

You >DO< understand the difference between "progressive" and "regressive" in regards to taxes, don't you?

Oh, I guess you don't.
New Carry on...
you appear to have nothing to add.

You gave your definition of progressive.

I showed you how the proposal fits within your definition.

Enjoy the remainder of your recess without me.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient Feb. 12, 2002, 03:35:15 PM EST
New "Less regressive" != progressive.
I'm sorry if that minor fact has managed to elude you.

Or did you also envision some sort of mandatory purchasing scheme in your fantasy?

Something like, everyone MUST spend 20% of their annual income (non-adjusted) on taxable goods and services?

Now THAT would be a progressive sales tax.

Oh, but why don't we just cut out the requirement to purchase and just tax their income directy?
New No one wants to punish anyone for success.
But that is often the double-speak expressed by plutocrats intent on paying the absolute minimum on taxes.

>>Why won't this work...because those who think the "rich people" owe them
>>something would argue that since they don't spend everything they have...they
>>wouldn't pay "their fair share".

Perhaps "rich people" do owe the people who made them rich something? Or is it your position that people become rich only by the sweat of their own brow?

Again, it is an issue of fairness. If and only if rich Americans became rich solely of their own account, owing nothing to the laborers they hired, nor the consumers they exploited could the claim be made that "rich people don't owe society anything for their largesse." (Quick examples: Lee Iacoca. Does he owe the taxpayers anything? How about, damn - forgot his name - Robert somebody, the old CEO of AT&T who laid off > 10,000 telephone operators and then got a 5 million dollar bonus as a consequence for his trouble. What part of that 5 million does he owe to the people he laid off? Anything?)

>>If you mean by "fair" that there is opportunity for anyone then I would
>>suppose I would say that I believe the system is "fair".

"Anyone"? Equally? You can't mean that unless you think a black kid born in the inner city had just as great a chance starting out as Dubya did.
bcnu,
Mikem
New Well...
And did [link|http://news.smallbusinessstudio.com/articles/01/03/08/145037.html|Lee Iaccoca] start out as CEO of Chrysler? Don't think so. And do you think Ford made a mint on the Mustang? (7 billion+ units) Do you think Lee got his take on that from Ford?

Why do these people >owe< someone else? I see...they "exploited" consumers...because consumers are stupid, average poor people. Back to Iaccoca...he "exploited" 7 BILLION Mustang owners.

Maybe he gave the people what they wanted and what they were willing to pay to get.

Oh...but CEO's make so much more money than the average. Tell me...would you want "the average" running the company as CEO? Or do you think that there might actually be some talent that these guys are being compensated for. The ability to lead, make strategy, build team...nah...they're just lucky sods who don't deserve what they get.

The guy from AT&T. Slashed jobs, got a bonus...company still alive...hmmm...what about the 300,000 other AT&T workers that still have jobs because such measures were taken?

And again...the >attitude< is pervasive. You want to give the government the right to say how much is too much. There is no equality or fairness in that. You want the government to decide who is rich and make them pay more than everyone else....because they OWE IT TO THEM.

Pardon me if I find that attitude just as offensive as the size of some of the compensation packages.

If you want to start on the racist argument...I'm sure we could go around there too. Its not "poor black kids from the inner city" anymore. Inner city kids (black, white, green or any) are at a distinct disadvantage because the school systems suck. Fixing that will fix most of the current opportunity problems. Or are you suggesting that the rich people keep it this way so that they can keep their little club?

Sure it helps to be raised in middle or upper class. But that doesn't guarantee success. In fact, there's probably just as many or more "success stories" among people who came from "nothing" as there are from those who started in the upper class.





You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Let's get a couple things straight.
>> Inner city kids (black, white, green or any) are at a distinct disadvantage
>> because the school systems suck.

This situation, of course, has nothing at all to do with a lack of money (i.e. taxes paid) right?

>> In fact, there's probably just as many or more "success stories" among people
>> who came from "nothing" as there are from those who started in the upper
>> class.

Might have been a decent stab, if the claim stood a remote chance of being true. I'll stand corrected if you have evidence of this. I know you said "probably", but come on, as many millionaires out of the inner city as out of the country clubs? Nonsense.

>> Or are you suggesting that the rich people keep it this way so that they can
>> keep their little club?

You're catching on now, aren't you?

>> do these people >owe< someone else? I see...they "exploited" consumers...

Let's see if I can >start< a list of the damage done to the populas so that auto execs could earn their billions:
a) dirty air
b) dirty playgrounds from the lead used in the fuel to power automobiles
c) 41,000+ dead per year from the products use
d) dirty water
e) Pintos, need I say more?

And finally,

>>Tell me...would you want "the average" running the company as CEO?

Why not? You seem to be quite happy with "below average" running the whole country! And, IIRC, *before* the annointed one became President, his having the good taste to be born into the right family allowed him to become CEO of a corporation notwithstanding his "less than average" intellect.
bcnu,
Mikem
New Bravo!!
I had to bite my tongue to keep from responding to Beep's post. I knew from experience that it would be worth the wait to let you do the rebuttal. Much more entertaining than mine would have been, seeing as how I was going to concentrate on all the logic falaccies.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
New Thanks ;-)
New Lets do.
I live in NJ. My kids and the kids in Camden NJ have the exact same spent per student...but the caliber of education at my local schools versus that in Camden (15 miles away) is vastly different.

Its not just money...or it would be identical, right?

As for success stories...I already linked to one. Iaccoca. I'd bet if you went through the CEO list you'ld find plenty more. Sec State Powell from Harlem, Condoleeza Rice certainly was being held down by "the man" when Denver University let her in at 15. There are more...trust me. I've met alot of them.

The CC comment is beyond ridiculous. Not even worthy.

As for your stats on the auto industry. One question. Do you own a car? Consider yourself a poor, uninformed, duped consumer then. Your comment would lead to the smae conclusion if the invention had been recycled newspaper. If people express a need or desire that someone happens to meet, then the people who have that need have been duped. Yeah...right....sure.

As for GW. He didn't stay CEO for long. And you phrase the statement like there was some kind of choice between above and below average. Thats pretty darned funny too.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Iaccoca a good example
You are usually an effective apologist for the monied class but you slipped a gear on this one. Let's see, you imply that successful people don't owe anything to the society that nurtured that success. I seem to remember a teensy weensy little 1.6 billion dollar bailout of Chrysler while Iaccoca was in charge.

From [link|http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/06223.html|encyclopedia.com]

Yeah, you're right, the successful don't owe anything to society. They obviously made it by the sweat of their brow and don't owe nobody nothin'.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
New Incorrect assertion...
Most wealthy folk do, in fact, return alot to the society. Bill Gate's as an example, gives hundreds of millions to various charities, foundations, etc...(and I still don't like him)

They ran an entire 2 hour special on the charitable work of the Microsoft millionaires. (about 100 of them)

The owners of the golf course around the corner from me sponsor city kids to come learn the game...great guys (at least the 3 of 4 with whom I played). All millionaires. All black. Same with the guys I met in Ohio that own a packaging company, a trucking firm, several restaurants...all successful, all started poor in the projects...again all black...and all give back.

As for Iaccoca...you need to read up on that some. Probably the only company in history to actually pay back the fed, in full, years before the notes were due. And since the fed was acquiring quite a bit of military hardware from them...it was in the governments interest to keep them from failing. The economy was already hurting...he secured 2.4 billion in the company and 1.5 billion from the government.
So..son of poor immigrants works his way through company to be forced out by "old school" to move on and engineer one of the most dramatic, large scale corporate turnarounds (bailout implies the fed did not get their money back...they did) in history...that, I believe would be success from hard work. Were other people involved? Sure. Was he appointed? No. Did the sweat of his own brow and his own determination get him to where he was. Yes. Did he VOLUNTARILY give back. Yes. Did he, in the end, get too full of himself and cost himself image...yeah that too ;-)

What you don't understand is my attitude. You consider me an apologist for the wealthy. They don't need that...nor am I. These people, by and large, were successful by work, luck, whatever...but they have lived the American Dream...my issue is the sense of entitlement that comes from the other side. Its not based upon the fact that the rich don't give back because they do. The wealthy do give back. VOLUNTARILY. (So maybe we have to name a building or a foundation after them...big deal) My issue is that your attitude is based upon the premise that >they owe you<. THAT is what I find abhorrent. That is where Ayn Rand had it right. (ouch...that hurts just typing it). The entitlement mentality is my issue.

Rich people got rich. Its America...thats its promise. Anyone can do it with determination and some luck. Damn near everyone can make a living...a better living tham almost anywhere else on the planet. We can take care of those who can't WITHOUT gouging those who "made it".

Is that to say I don't see problems in the current rate of CEO pay. No....there are serious problems there. I also think that since the bubble burst...you'll see alot less of that type of compensation. But feeling that the "millionaire next door" owes you...well we could discuss it I guess...but I can't say that I'd ever understand that attitude.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New So we misunderstand each other
You are not an apologist for the wealthy. Fine, I stand corrected. As for your misunderstanding about me- I certainly don't think they "owe" me. I'll make my own way, thank you very much.

You cite examples of the wealthy giving to society. I find it hard to forget the many other examples of the wealthy screwing anybody within range to get more wealth. You tend to focus on one area, I tend to focus on another.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
New Hard to get at the real heart of the matter..
...around here. S'ok. And I'll grant that I have a tendency to not explain myself fully...generally trying to respond but sometimes doing it a tad too quickly.

Its not a matter of focussing on one side or the other. The wealthy are what they are. If they break any laws screwing people to get more money...then get them. If people volunteer to get screwed, however...its the American Way (big wink)

Otherwise, I have a real problem with what is essentially penalizing them for becoming successful.

Mind you, I had the same problem with the welfare system penalizing people for working harder (loss of benefits exceeded gains in wage).

I pretty much want the fed government out of the social engineering game altogether. John Q Citizen should = John Q Citizen.



You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Here's some real heart for you ;-)
Take a gander and see if your stated position that "rich corporations are run by really neat people" changes any.

[link|http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html|http://www.corporat.../top100.html]

New Correction
Real corporations are run by real people.

Some good. Some bad.

In your list provided...some were bad and probably committed knowingly...some were bad and probably committed unknowingly...some were accidental and its kind of hard to put malice into that.

Or are you saying that all companies are evil?

Where did you ever come up with that "stated position" anyway? Creative license.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New "stated position" inferred from your posts.
New Ahhh, IC
"really neat people"???

Can only tell you what I know from experience. I've met a bunch of guys with initials in their title...only a couple would fit the "neat" category. None of them carried a pitchfork and dressed in red ;-)

My company has settled criminal actions in the past couple of years. Environmental claims. Claims on activity that actually occurred in the 1940's. But, environmental law doesn't grandfather. Since the CEO was about 4 years old at the time...I'm sure he was wondering how to screw John Q Consumer in between naps.

However, companies are staffed and run by real people. There are some ugly real people out there...not all of them are corporate...nor are all of them the mugger in the alley.

Life in the big city.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Re: Lee Iacocca
Lee Iacocca was also the chariman of the [link|http://www.ellisislandrecords.org/membership/wme_1a.asp?|The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation.]
The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation (SOLEIF) was founded in 1982, when President Ronald Reagan asked Lee Iacocca, then Chairman of Chrysler Corporation, to head a citizens group to raise funds for the restoration and preservation of The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.
Being an immigrant, even I gave a donation.
Alex

"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
New Ahem...back to the original subject...

>> do these people >owe< someone else? I see...they "exploited" consumers...

Let's see if I can >start< a list of the damage done to the populas so that auto execs could earn their billions:
a) dirty air
b) dirty playgrounds from the lead used in the fuel to power automobiles
c) 41,000+ dead per year from the products use
d) dirty water
e) Pintos, need I say more?


Most of this argument is faulty and misleading, imo. The CEO didn't force people to use cars and have cooperated with governmental regulations to produce cleaner cars, etc. (CEO's aren't evil by nature.)

However, it seems inconceivable that someone would actually attempt to argue that CEO's have achieved everything on their own, without any governmental (public) assistance. Frankly, the current example is perfect; cars would not nearly be so successful without the advent of the public highway system (in particular - interstates).
New On Force, study California in the 1940's.
After the war, Standard Oil of California essentially bought all of the City Councils in California.

The mission: Get the city council to pave over all the trolleys so the people would >have< to
purchase automobiles, which of course, required Standard of California's gasoline.

It worked fabulously well. And don't let's get started on all the oil money and influence in Washington,
which habitually either ignores or underfunds cleaner, publicly funded mass transit. You think that's
a coincidence?
New Cecil doesn't think so.
And Cecil Adams knows everything, you know. Even more than CRC. :-)

[link|http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_335.html|Did General Motors destroy the LA mass transit system?]

HTH! :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Thanks
It would've taken me forever to find that.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Google on The Straight Dope
Cecil's very good at squashing urban legends.

[link|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=straight+dope+GM+california|Here's] the search I used. First link. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Heh.
>> Now, you may or may not believe GM's professions of innocence concerning the
>> holding company.

Heh. Thank you. I don't.
New Evil Grin - before you start praising mass transit...
may I point out that all mass transit (and railroads and airports and ... ) have also relied upon the public, usually in the form of initial (and cheap) land grants and right-of-ways.

(And don't get me started on the deals of Standard Oil...)

The point: again, these guys don't do it by themselves. (I'm amazed that people are even trying to argue the point.) I believe that was your initial argument.
New RightO! Thanks for reiterating the original point!
New 7 billion consumers? Me thinks you make a huge mistake
No way did seven billion people buy Mustangs. No forking way.
Most of the work of government does not need to be done.
New Missed a comma and 3
Seven million units since 65.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Sounds much better
Most of the work of government does not need to be done.
New I'm not replying to this one__ baby from candy. (you owe me)
New That is capitalism for you
and a reason why Hell is populated with rich people who have no idea why they were sent to Hell when they died.

Trust me, I have worked myself sick for my past employers and what do I have to show for it? A bit footprint on my rear end, and I get to watch those that benefitted from my hard work get pay raises and promotions. Don't worry, God is keeping score. Those people will get a warm reception when they die (hopefully of old age) and go to the afterlife. Not helping the poor is AntiChristian, the rich that do not help the poor and middle-class are not true followers of Jesus. Those that claim to be Christian, yet refuse to give away part of their riches, are really worshiping the God of Wealth. You know that guy in the red suit who isn't Santa Claus, quite the opposite.

Heh!

CEOs make Salary caps for their peons, yet have no limitations on their own salary. With the exception of Ben and Jerry's and other corps that limit what their CEO can make to a percentage of the profits. Or Apple where Steve Jobs gets $1USD a year because he is already a billionare. Some CEOs work their employees like slaves, make them work extra hours for no extra pay, refuse to give them stock options or profit sharing unless they are management, and other things. Then when the management screws up, they get rid of thousands of the peons but keep their highly paid managers that screwed up. You call that fair? If so, you have a weird sense of fairness! All that is would be bad business, bad as in bad to humanity. Good to profit making, but bad in karma, and bad as in sinning. It is time that these meglomaniacs pay and give up a part of their ill-gotten wealth.

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New Re: No one wants to punish anyone for success.
The way it is in US Capitalism is almost the same way it was in Feudalism. You have your haves and your havenots. Slavery was done away with, you no longer can own slaves, but you can now have them under contract and limit their rights by that contract. We are all just surfs working for Kings and Queens to make them richer and more powerfull. Every once in a while we get lucky and some of those Kings and Queens throw us a bone or do a "sociable" thing to make them feel good to give away a small fraction of their wealth to get it back in tax breaks, or to get some sort of award from their peers. This is of course not always common and not done by every King and Queen. If you are not royalty, you cannot make it in the big time unless you brownnose the right rear end.

How dare we claim that the Kings and Queens pay their own fair share of taxes? Why it is a privilage of the rich to avoid as much taxes as they can by using their loyal henchmen (Lawyers and Accountants) to reduce the taxes they pay.

Even if it makes more sense to mine for gold in a larger mine that has more gold in it, it seems that or Uncle Sam would rather mine for gold in smaller mines that hardly have any gold in it whatsoever! Why tap a lake, when you can tap a puddle of water? Why tell that 150 pound man to lose weight when you have a 800 pound man standing next to him that you said was in good shape?

Want to get rich? Follow the same plan that many others have followed:

#1 Stab all your coworkers in the back. Blame them for your mistakes, and spread rumors about them to get them fired. Don't target anyone who is willing to become your stooge or that brownnoses you. If you stab them in the back and they keep working for you with no complaints, keep them.

#2 Learn how to lie while keeping a straight face. Practice "Trickle down theory works!" "OJ Simpson was innocent!" "Enron is a good stock investment!" "The Republican Party cares about the poor!" If you get to the point that you start believing your own lies, then you are almost ready.

#3 Find out what other people are doing, and steal their ideas. Steal the ideas of your coworkers. Learn to say what they say in meetings and at lunch, and then reword it a bit with "buzzwords" so it sounds impressive. Make sure that you hide any memos about meetings so your coworkers won't be able to contradict you in meetings that you stole their ideas.

#4 Remember step number 1? Build up your base of loyal stooges and work them as hard as you can. If they don't quit or complain, keep them employed. Monitor them like Big Brother, force them to work extra hours without pay. If any of them complain, get rid of them. If the EEOC calls you, they can be bought off for the right price. Moving on up to management is simple if you are already a crook.

#5 If you company cannot make the products and/or services that you want them to, then just buy out a smaller company. If the DOJ investigates you, just hire a team of high priced lawyers and have them create a ton of fake documents and other evidence to throw at the DOJ. Fake videos, fake evidence, and then claim you don't know what is happening if you get caught.

#6 Make sure that you keep brownnosing, and invest money in your "buddies" companies and make loans to them as well. Keep that money in the top 10%, and always follow a stock tip from your "buddy" who works at the company you are investing in. "Insider Trading" charges can also be paid away in case you get caught.

#7 Join the Republican Party, subscribe to the "Supply Side" economics theory, despite the many holes shot into it. Learn the secret handshakes, and the art of the deal. Sign that contract in blood with that weird looking guy who promises you wealth and power.

#8 Buy or rent the media to create positive articles on your company, products, or services. Time/Warner/AOL is a good one to rent, just ask Apple. :) Make sure that you give them an "exclusive deal".

#9 Lie, cheat, commit fraud, stab anyone in the back that stands in your way. The best way to do this is to pretend to be their friend, promise them a lot of things, break those promises, and then spread rumors about them and do what you can to get them fired and ruin their career. You can hire people to create false evidence, plant evidence, and create false information about them. Then deny knowing anthing about that if they are caught.

#10 Make sure that you keep the illusion that the USA is fair, and that everyone has an equal chance to become a billonare no matter what their background. That keeps the rest of them working as hard as they can for you. Make sure that you spread this BS on Internet forums, newsgroups, IRC chats, and any other place that you can think of. Also have your stooges do it for you as well.

Repeat steps 1 to 10, over and over again, until you finally do succeed. Apparently it has worked for many people, despite the number of times they have screwed up or failed. Remember that even that guy who uses those lame pick-up lines will eventually find a woman who falls for it, after getting rejected by a thousand women. So keep acting like a Rich Jerk, and eventually you will become a Rich Jerk!

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New The rich get away with too much
they can find ways to avoid paying taxes and even can get Richfare from the Government.

You complain if Person A pays 20 cents in taxes, and Person B pays 10 cents in taxes. What you don't show is that Person A makes $1,200,000USD a year, and Person B makes $20,000USD a year. Percentagewise, Person B pays more taxes than Person A based on their income, yet you make a big stinking deal over Person A paying 10 more cents than Person B. Person A should be paying a hell of a lot more than Person B, but can use loopholes, lawyers, accountants, and other tricks to hide money and avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Punish the rich for their success? Hell I wish I was punished that much! Give me an income of over a million or more a year, and the same tax rate as the current rich and I'll be forever happy. heck, even if I had a 50% or 70% taxrate and could keep the rest, I'd still be happy. Why? Because I'd make a hell of a lot more than I am making now, even with paying heavier taxes. My friends would get Playstation 2's for Christmas. :)

The problem is that a majority of our wealthy are Scrooges that do not want to give up their wealth to help those less fortunate. They also want their taxes lowered so they can keep more of their wealth. This presents a problem in the money staying at the top 10% and not moving down to the other 90% of the economy. It is in the best interest of the economy to move a part of that money to the other 90% to keep things moving. Heck most consumers will just spend the extra money anyway, which keeps the economy going. The lasting f*cking thing we want to do is give the rich more money or let them keep more of their money.

In Thailand, you might like it. There is no sales tax, and only a tax on imports and exports. No income tax that I know of. Somehow the Government has money, but I am not sure how they get it with the lack of taxes that they have? maybe they collect heavy fines, maybe people donate, maybe they have some reasource that they sell a lot of? Anyway the people are very poor, and many of them work for factories to produce goods to sell to other countries. They work at slave labor compared to our salaries in the US, and they work extra hours. Some don't even have a roof to put over their heads and are lucky if they have a tent to sleep in. If that is the way you want things for the US, allow me to move out of the country and into someplace else.

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New Assertions without foundation.
The entire scrooges argument.

Foundations, charitable contributions, hospital wings, college buildings, scholarship programs. But all rich people are scrooges. These things are just figments of my imagination.

Of course you would like to have their problems. Thats the aspiration. The dream that is America.

BTW...unless the rich people keep the money in their mattress...that money makes it back into the economy as loans and investments. It doesn't just vanish. (money multiplier in action)

I'm not making a fuss over one person paying 10 cents more or less in taxes in absolute terms. But if the fed is going to tax income...it should take an equal part of everyones income. nickle on the dollar...dime on the dollar...whatever. Of course I think the current system is a farce. I also believe the government shouldn't make value judgements on the source of its revenue.

I'm not saying that I don't understand the ideal of wealth redistibution in society. And making sure that everyone makes enough to support themselves should be a goal we can all agree on....but once you get to that living wage...the government should treat everything else equally. That is my opinion. Its based on a fundamental mistrust of the federal government and its ability to "do the right thing"
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New The way it really is
I didn't say "all rich people" quit putting words in my mouth. I just said that there are some scrooges out there.

Foundations, charitable contributions, hospital wings, college buildings, scholarship programs. But all rich people are scrooges. These things are just figments of my imagination.

Not all rich people do these things, in fact, in my area, these things are dropping. They are closing down hospitals, colleges are downsizing, scholarship programs are hard to get, foundations keep calling me asking for money saying that their charitable contributions have gone down. These are indeed facts in my area. Care to explain why these things are happening? Care to explain why a hospital in Normandy, Missouri had to close down? Care to explain to me why some friends of mine who worked at colleges got downsized or reduced to a part-time status as the college has to tighten its belt? Where are all the moneymen and moneywomen to make charitable donations to save these organizations? Oh I admit there are a few, just damn well not enough!

Haven't you noticed that the US government does not treat everyone the same or fairly? Some people are more equal than others. You have two people, one rich and the other poor. They both commit the same crime, yet the poor one gets a public defender for free and the rich gets a team of lawyers because he can afford it. The poor guy goes to jail for a very long time, and the rich guy either gets off or goes to a "county club" prison for a short amount of time and then does community service. Just ask OJ Simpson, you can buy your way out of criminal court. There was a guy in our area that would pick fights with people in bars, and then follow them on the roads when they left, force their car off the road, and then beat them senseless. My mother's goddaughter had her boyfriend that she was about to marry have his bacholar party. This rich jerk decided to pick on him, followed him home, forced him off the road in a car wreck, and then hit him until he was dead. It went to court, and he got off on an assault and battery charge. His lawyers claimed that he could not be charged on more than one criminal charge at a time and the judge only accepted the assault charge. The rich jerk got out and did it again, and before he had killed that man, he had assaulted several others the same way and got a slap on the wrist each time. That is Missouri justice for you, the best justice that money can buy! The best judges that money can buy as well! So don't f*cking tell me that everyone gets treated fairly. I've seen the bullsh*t, I've heard the bullsh*t, my family was affected by the bullsh*t. The rich get all the breaks.

You still have yet to explain how Enron was able to get out of paying taxes, or was able to hide the fact that their accounting was screwed up and management knew about it and sold their stock before the sh*t hit the fan. I wonder how many other companies are like Enron?


BTW...unless the rich people keep the money in their mattress...that money makes it back into the economy as loans and investments. It doesn't just vanish. (money multiplier in action)


Yes loans and investments, usually to other rich guys and invested in other rich companies so the money stays in the top 10%. While the small businesses that have the great and innovative ideas don't get the loans and investments that they need to survive. How about making loans and investments to the other 90% of the economy? I start up a small business, can't even get a 1 cent investment, some rich guy starts up a company with the same ideas as mine, yet gets his Golf Buddies who are also rich to loan him the money and invest in his company. My small business goes out of business, but his company, based on my ideas, makes a ton of money. I applied for the small business loan, I joined garage.com and other "Angel" websites. But did I get any money? I ask you, did I get any money? I'll ask you again, did I get any money for loans and or investments? A big freaking no on that!

I'll ask you yet again, where is that freaking money that was supposed to "trickle down" to the other 90% of the economy? It is a 100% surefire f*cking 100% true fact that I haven't seen any of it! So go sell those lies to someone else who cares, I cannot be brainwashed by them, as they have already driven me crazy.

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New Take a chill pill, ya whiner
New I already have
but what pill can I take to change the truth in the way that many of you want to?

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New They don't seem to be working. Please move it to Flames.
You're just ranting. You're not presenting any evidence. If you want to rant, please move it to Flames. That's what it's for.

If you want to present evidence for your position, please do so. Links would be nice. Anecdotal evidence doesn't carry much weight.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Thanks for expressing my thought so well, Scott.
Alex

"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
New Wow.
Twice in 2 days you've saved me some typing.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Sorry this IS Politics, rant away!
"If you're half-evil, nothing soothes you more than to think the person you are opposed to is totally evil."
Norman Mailer
New Thank you
To BP:
I suppose that my personal experience does not count, but theirs does?

Where can I start with links? How about that Normandy Hospital that closed that I stated as evidence and it is a fact?

[link|http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/special/pdtop5000.nsf/story/225098D38A799A5A862568DD0077FE58?OpenDocument|Five hospitals to close in STL area]

Where are the rich guys to bail out these hospitals and give them more money to stay open? Where is the government on paying for medicare services that hospitals provide? Where is the money that was suppsed to trickle down to these hospitals and the poor that could not afford medical services? Even Canada has a better medical system than us.

[link|http://www.geocities.com/conservative05/supplysideeconomics.html|Supply side economics]

Supply side economics work only in an ideal situation. Many risks are involved in the policy. If the rich do not invest the money in the lower classes, the policy fails. Herbert Hoover was also a big fan of trickle down economics and it is part of the reason this country went into a depression during his administration. In an address to Congress in 1930, he said, \ufffdOur leading business concerns have sustained wages\ufffd These measures have maintained higher degrees of consumption than would have otherwise been the case\ufffd They have thus prevented a large measure of unemployment.\ufffd But, the country knew and felt the real truth behind the words.

[link|http://www.lecturenow.com/People/PatChoate.htm|Pat Choate] holds a PHD in economics and has spoken out against Supply Side economics before.

Read [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896083284/qid=1013740758/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/002-8275876-5199244|Mink Coats Don't Trickle Down : The Economic Attack on Women and People of Color] it has some interesting evidence and cases that show that the money does not trickle down.

I am still waiting for your proof that supply side economics works. If so, explain the recession after the Reagan/Bush years, explain Herbert Hover and the depression.

Another case example of supply side economics failing:

[link|http://beacon-www.asa.utk.edu/issues/v76/n66/venable.67v.html|Reaganomics kills Journal, causes job losses] your tax dollars at work taking companies out of business.

I remember that the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the St. Louis Globe Democrat went head to head about a decade or longer ago. Guess which newspaper is still in print with modern headlines?

[link|http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/REAGANOMICS.HTM|Some more facts pro and con on Reaganomics] check out the poll as well.

[link|http://www.mojones.com/mother_jones/MJ95/fair.html|Big fat lies]

[link|http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/00db01co.xls|IRS collectable tax for 2000 and 1999] notice the amount collected from corporations and individuals. Which group pays more taxes? [link|http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/00db07co.xls|Fiscal years 1971-2000] notice how the amount of personal income taxes went up, relative to the Corp income taxes.

But anyway the US isn't the only country where the rich pay less taxes [link|http://www.perceptions.couk.com/taxone.html|Check out this UK chart]



"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Expand Edited by nking Feb. 14, 2002, 11:22:14 PM EST
New Re: the entire scrooges argument.
A history and polisci prof once told me what he thought about corporate mogul contributions:

"When these guys get old and realize they're going to die soon, they start thinking about the afterlife and try to make amends. They look back over a lifetime spent trying to squeeze the last dollar out of everyone they meet and realize that is a morally questionable way to spend one's time. What Carnegie did at the end was try to get into heaven using the only thing of value he was familiar with: money."

I don't know if that's true or not, but it does have a ring of truth about it.

Somewhere in this horrifically long thread you (or some one agreeing with you) said that if I make a bad, crappy, dangerous product and somebody else is "dumb" enough to buy it, well, that's the American Way.

I've been thinking about that and it may be on this point that I differ from the typical gang of capitalists the most. In my view, capitalists believe that it is all right to exploit people who lend themselves to exploitation. For me, the fact that I am "smarter" than some one else does not entitle me to exploit them for my own gain. Indeed, it should be my mission to very carefully avoid exploiting my education, intellect, social position, etc.

You asked me if I thought all corporations were evil. I do not. However, I do recognize that all corporations are ethically vacuous. Every company is in business for one thing and one thing only: to make money for the shareholders. In the execution of bizness, nothing else matters. Scratch that single raison d'etre below the surface and you end up with: every company exists solely to extort as much money as possible from everyone.

But calling all companies "evil" is a tad much. Evil can be known only in the presence of goodness. There is nothing good about any company. Business Ethics is an oxymoron. The question of "good" and "evil" is not addressed, (that is, it is of no concern to) companies. If it is given lip service by business, it is only because the business thinks it can generate additional money for itself by uttering the words.
bcnu,
Mikem
New Progress.
College Professor?

Ever heard the statement...those who can do, do...those who can't do, teach (those who can't teach, teach gym ;-))

It is >that professor's attitude< that I find fault with. That the very aquisition of wealth somehow taints human behavior...making them all >bad< people...and they only need to make amends before they die...otherwise they'd just keep screwing everybody. Shit...look at Norm's attitude. Wonder if he talks to his plumber that way...cause its a high probablility that his plumber would be classified as rich (assuming he's good) Rich people are EVIL! Ask around. They only give back to make up to the Lord.

/me shakes head in disgust

Yes, corporations exist for one purpose. To earn an acceptable rate of return on shareholder investment. (make money) They do this (largely...there have been some notable recent exceptions) by providing a good or a service that the market (john q consumer) >wants<. Somehow, the fact that you don't think they >need< it means that their act of buying has somehow been >forced< upon them.

Welcome to America. Thats freedom for you. But if I get something you think I shouldn't want...that gets turned into "screwing stupid people". I would say that the government sponsored lottery systems are far worse than any corporation at "screwing stupid people". Preying on hope and largely doing so at the expense of the lower classes. But that would be a rant for another day.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New You don't like "screwing"? How about...
manipulating said John Q public into thinking he "needs" something by restricting options? (Like in the HMI/Control Systems business, we "need" Microsoft because all the drivers are there. Or, more broadly, we "need" automobiles because we don't have a lot of alternatives and "like a Rock..." and all that?)

Question: Suppose I make a product that there is no need for, but because I'm "smart enough" (for lack of better words) to manipulate through advertising, lobbying government officials, leveraging, etc. to get some lessor person to "want" my product. Is that okay? Is that a "good thing"? Or is there some level or corruption in me that allows me to do that? Suppose the product actually harms us in a sublime way (like dirties the air and water, but that won't be noticed for several decades), is that still "okay"? Don't I "owe" the people I've harmed?

"Americans love their automobiles." The whole world knows that, but why? Do we come out of the womb wanting to drive? I don't think so. I think its got to do with manipulating the public and with the corrupting influence of the automobile industry on our public officials that precludes decent alternatives from ever coming to market.

IMnsHO the American public is ripe for being manipulated and the task of manipulation is becoming easier with each generation. But that manipulation of the Murican Peeple (to borrow from Ashton) is wrong (note I did not say evil).

If manipulation was wrong for Osama, why is it right for Corporate America?

bcnu,
Mikem
New Bizness is morally neuter, ethically impoverished.
(Prolly just as well, given the impossibility of ever using the word 'moral' to any purpose, in a theologically besotted citizenry)

BeeP may sprinkle the adj. decent modifying [profit], in his characterization of a Corp's sole raison d'etre, and perenially fuzz-up (or down) the proliferation of Bastards in er 'decisionmaking' slots within (now, so many.. of) Our Corps:

Gosh.. they aren't *ALL* slime, but yes well, sure maybe there are a *FEW* slime, but you see.. zzzzzz

Apologies R'Us? They aren't *THAT*.. *BAD*.. BeeP, face it: You Are an Unconditional Apologist\ufffd - it's a history of posts Thing.

As for finding amongst Murican Corps du jour (plotted vs size and wealth, perhaps?) some common factor which:

Recognizes the society; its needs, its provided infrastructure, etc.? Finding evidence that there has been a reversal of the trend to commodify workers as liabilities; reversal of the trend to out-sourcing to Manpower-type Temps..?

Trends towards actual 'vacations', comparable to other places in the civilized world (lots more that Two weeks/yr.!), return of the 40 hour week sans unpaid overtime and 'page me at home'..? Trend against forced 'arbitration' / denial of access to courts: to get the job in the first place? And __so many more items__.

Nope, mine is a qualitative assessment of the Murican Bizness mentality in Millennium #2:


Show me some of these trends <<<

I see no evidence that any of the important ones are.. other than declining further.



Ashton
New I expected you here sooner ;-)
And while I couldn't have written your response word for word...I certainly could've given a pretty accurate summary in advance.

Short of inventing a "new way" Ash...(and I would support that in many areas)...you never seem to be able to do anything except rail against.

I am in corp America...have been for a very long time and have alot of experience with many different companies and have met large numbers of C**s (CEO, CIO, CFO, COO, et al). There are just as many good and bad people in corps as there are outside of them. If >not< chanting the mantra of "big bad corps and evil rich people are out to get us" makes me an apologist...so be it. I'm just not that paranoid...and I worry much more about the government screwing things up than I do "big bad business"

I think its more along the lines of someone here who happens to disagree with you and happens to thing the "system" that is the Merkin Way is better than any other proposed so far....and I don't see alot of alternatives being proposed...just a large amount of yelling and chest beating.

Please offer up the alternatives. I've asked before...I'm asking again. Keep us free...but keep us >safe< :/
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I will never understand this.
>> I worry much more about the government screwing things up than I do
>> "big bad business"

This has/will never make any sense to me at all. I do not understand this in the least. This is only a watered down version of Timothy McVeigh's attitude.

We have agreed, more or less, that the sole raison d'etre for bizness is to make money for the shareholders. What is equally clear is that the primary purpose of government, at its core, is to protect its citizenry. We can argue about how effectively each one accomplishes its task, but at their base the goal of each is as different as it could possibly be. Government's role is to serve >YOU<. A corporation's role is to serve >THEIR OWN<. At their core, corporations care not a tinker's damn about you except for how much of your money they can get you talked out of. Of course, the corrupting influence of bizness on government has perhaps irreparably damaged government to the point that it is incapable of fulfilling its duties to its citizenry, but the fix is less corporate influence, not more!

And if you don't think fundamentals matter, consider the healthcare industry. Remember HMO's? I worked in the HMO industry for more than 5 years. I could see after my first that it was destined to fail because the delivery of healthcare is at its core an altruistic activity, bizness at its core is a somewhat regulated greed activity. Applying bizness rules to an altruistic activity simply won't work.
New Knock, knock...
You write:

"Of course, the corrupting influence of bizness on government has perhaps irreparably damaged government to the point that it is incapable of fulfilling its duties to its citizenry, but the fix is less corporate influence, not more!"

I find this a bit redundant... seeing as how this government is the fucking citizenry... Oh, and who are the fucking stockholders of these companies? I love how it's so much easier to blame "politicians" and "big business" at the same time we consistently elect cookie cutter Ivy League milktoasts while swilling down our McDonalds shakes in our GM's, waiting to get home to our Sonies and be outraged some more... ad nauseum. You and I my friend are the fucking problem.

Beep is only explaining Bus 101 to you. The government does an absolutely terrible job distributing money, 'cause they're only accountable to you and me (and we have rewarded them time and time again with reelection). Business is about making money. That '50's happy horseshit about trust and loyality to a "company" has taken a place beside Elvis and Jello molds. So I guess I have to ask why "you will never understand this"?
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer

"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."

P. Townshend

"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
New Simpler explanation.
Premise 1: Government's role is to protect me.
Premise 2: Bizness' role is to exploit me.
Conclusion: Government is bad, Bizness is good.

I still don't get it ;-)
bcnu,
Mikem
New Fair enough... Now I understand...
Just so I don't forget... Government - bad, Business - good... Four legs - good, two legs - bad...

And speaking of Orwell, I'm affraid if we muck about too much with the constitution, we'll be seeing the situation where "some animals are created more equal than others" (again)...
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer

"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."

P. Townshend

"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
New My solution? has always been: actual OPERATING checks &
balances = via the 'government' you imagine to be as corrupt as your Corporate (and current substitute-Government). NOT the emasculated, current Corp-lawyer tissue of loopholes. (Today.. M$ is able to outspend even the USDOJ in its permanent floating crap game of of congenital disinformation. M$ is not alone, merely the most visibly corrupt daily example)

I'll go along ~ with Moffitt's sketch below. And second the McVeigh doggerel as seems just beneath the surface - in your implicit disdain for all things Governmental. Why your POV is unMurican at the core: does that make you a non-pinko Commie dupe? puce perhaps?

And if.. 'our government' were as screwed up as is the current Corporate-purchased "government" [???]. Why, if it were *that* bad in Murica 2000:

Again the Constitution holds the remedy: under such a condition fucking revolution is not merely 'permissible' (Hah as if a Patriot needs permission ;-) -- it is a mandatory explicitly stated remedy within that document !!

It ain't either/or, Corporate rule/People rule, -- Government IS all 'we' have against the exclusively self-serving greed of especially the Modrin Billy n'Bally Lying-type Corporate model.



Sorry you missed my Rx so far, and so often..


Ashton
New Re: govt.
"That government is best which governs least" is a motto with which Henry David Thoreau opens his pamphlet, Civil Disobedience.

That's what I think Beep means as well.
Alex

"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
New Yes but.. in concentrating on that 'least'
- such a government can be, must be - effective. There is no contradiction in reserving for govt. precisely those areas where no private or private-group 'interest' can suffice.

And so long as 'we' (any large enough plurality) *doubt* our ability to construct, refine, oversee: a government sufficiently honorable, restrained but not.. impotent to act! [??] What we are really saying is some approximation, corollary of -

A) We don't really believe that the Constitution can be delivered upon.

B) Maybe because we don't trust [myself! and all those like me].

(No, of course it isn't as simplistic as Any 2 ideas - but it IS about earnestness +/- hypocrisy, in our collective actual attitude towards governing ourselves.)

And if we AREN'T earnest: then we are saying that, we are not ready for self-government. There's an either/or! for the digitally obsessed too ;-)




Ashton Tom Paine Leibnitz Carlin
New Federal
I think the constitution can be delivered upon. I don't think the Fed can do it.

I think we can establish government sufficiently honorable to act. I don't think the Fed is it.

Roll of different leves of government has flipped over time. More emphasis has been placed at the federal level for things that should not be handled at that level.

The fed is sufficiently removed from the people to shield it from adequate review. This is how the "evil influence" and corruption occurs. The Fed, for the most part, is above the law. At least business has to answer to the law at some point.

The list that was posted before og the "Evil 100" businesses. Add up the fines levied against those companies. Quite a tidy sum of cash. Now add up the fines levied against Congressmen for illegal behavior. Hell...throw in the Executive and Judicial Branch as well.

Y'all are bitching about Clinton/Nixon/GW. Guess what. They are salaried for life. The Secret Service is paying for Hillary to qualify for a Congessional seat in New York. (rent on house next door...bought by Clintons for the sec detail...pays mortgage on both houses).

I guess my point is...I'm saying government...and meaning the Fed level. I know the mayor...and could probably get an audience with the governor. I'd be lucky to get within 100 yards of the Pres (even b4 9/11)

I have NEVER argued against a need for Federal Government. There is need. However, what we need it for and what it has developed into are light years apart from each other.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Missed point, I think.
>> More emphasis has been placed at the federal level for things that should not
>> be handled at that level.

The federal government has gotten into a lot of territory that was not originally within its scope. It has been, I would argue, loathe to do so. However, when the States for whatever reason, fail to uphold the ideals expressed in the Constitution or fail to faithfully execute the responsibilities they are charged with, the federal government has stepped in.

Perhaps you would argue that federal marshalls escorting civil rights marchers in the 1960's was a bad idea? Perhaps, in the great tradition of capitalism, we should sentence children without means to a lessor sort of life than give them a hand with HeadStart?

If the States want to bitch about federal encroachment, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Aside: Although with the current crop in the federal government, I think its pretty much open season on the less fortunate and dissentors.
bcnu,
Mikem
New You can't believe that
"Loathe to do so"?

We might as well stop now. If that is indeed what you believe...we'll not be able to sort this out without right shift to China.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Bravo!
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I want the Federal Gov to provide for the national defense, etc... See the original Constitution plus 10 (and a few more)... The squishy "ensure domestic tranquility" thing should most probably be rewritten and clearly defined.

I too have met many in corp America (C**'s) that I found very caring and intelligent (a couple of true losers as well :-) ). The problem with stereotyping is well... you know. I kept waiting for you to explain who these "shareholders" are (demographic breakout - institutional verses private, etc...) and you let me down. Because this was getting to the right edge on my 21" monitor I posted the congressional 2000 Tax Liabilities in a post to Norm as a new thread. Unfortunately, you didn't do this either so the "rich don't pay their fair share" bs kept going on... What is amazing to me is, the rich proportianately pay a shit load of taxes. I wish people would say what they really mean - "the distribution of wealth in this country bothers me". That would be hard to argue against?

I'm not ready to give up on democracy yet, either. Hitler said, " I would rather a million fools be led by one brilliant man than one brilliant man be led by a million fools"... Hitler said... And therein lies the rub. Kings provide absolute decisions. There's no "debate" and therefore no waiting around for important decisions to be made. That's a plus? The problem is, what happens if the king is f*&^% looney tunes?

I have to side with you on this one Be... To quote a great "American"; "you say you want a revolution, well you know, we'd all love to see the plan".
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer

"You better free your mind instead"
John Lennon

"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones
New That delicate balance..
Our (ideas of our government) are a tissue of such balances:

Individual protected (?) from some aspects of "the tyranny of the majority" aka homogenization.

Three branches intended to cross-check and sometimes confound each other.

Fed / State / County / ... arbitrary hierarchies all. Ideally the Fed usurps any lesser org. when (and only when?) that org. has proven incapable of meeting basic Constitutional obligations. Freedom Riders as good an example as any; even than - Fed came to the fray only after decades of indifference. Timing. Courage? or Expediency?

IMhO.. the genius of our base rules IS these overlapping and necessarily vague boundaries. The vagueness is not imprecision - but prescience! Recognition of the unpredictability of the perennial battles between personal greed / community health and all the other dichotomies.

"Fed removed from the people", you say. Sometimes such buffers are necessary. Corrective mechanisms do work - but not any of them 100%. Always there is the trade between - say, thousands of petty city machines VS the warts in the largest machine. Inescapable.

Seems I have more 'faith' in the wisdom of "all that is not explicitly stated" within our ground rules - than you have (?) Your faith in the mere 'economic model' OTOH appears almost limitless. I find both the econ. vision and its daily practical results patently fraudulent, rigged to favor the momentum of initial control of (some bias level) of capital.. against all without (a lot of) capital.

I guess it all depends upon.. from which comfortable sinecure one views it all ;-) Then select the data to justify, since no one warehouses It All.. just pieces.


Ashton
New I hope this isn't lost. I have a question.
Is a benevolent dictatorship of the people more in their interest than democracy?

You seem to suggest so in this post when you write:
>> "Fed removed from the people", you say. Sometimes such buffers are necessary.

I am not at all comfortable with the position that better results will come from less democracy. However, as time passes and I grow older, I am left with little else to conclude.

My concern is that we will never find this "benevolent dictator" to rule us.
bcnu,
Mikem
New anarchy and chaos is much preferable to a benevolent
dictatorship. That however is my personal opinion and not applicable to sheep, the afeared and the scrotes that want to make it happen. However it is a good description of a corporation, a dictatorship benevolent or no that one voluntarily joins for creature comforts.
thanx,
bill
Mike Doogan
"Then there's figure skating and ice dancing and snowboarding. The winners are all chosen by judges. That's not sports. That's politics. And curling? If curling is a sport, pork rinds are a health food."
New I can't imagine such a construct as,
a benevolent dictatorship of the people. The usual argument(s) re 'democracy' - have to do with some version of the idea, Folie de deux; folie des millions. Just because large numbers of people 'believe' something... etc.

'Benevolent' begs the fundamental Question: for Whom? for (largely) Which? sub-group. Since manifestly.. no one is wise enough to orchestrate all decisions affecting all people - we are stuck with variants of the controlled chaos du jour. I deem that a "benevolent dictatorship" is the fantasy of the mind which will trade simplistic for the difficult 'actual' (maybe same mind as trades a little security for a little freedom, etc.) ?

I found lots of pithy angles in the little book, Science Fiction and the New dark Age (Harold J. Berger, 1976) - especially in his exhaustive comparisons of various dystopias. It seems that all our grandiose simplistic recipes ARE or become dystopias.

(Only real hope I see: increasing levels of consciousness - the only antidote to sheepish rote behavior - from within. Since that requires individual and difficult work: those are the odds IMhO. Still, there's always a chance.. )


A.
New But then, Plato's philosopher king, comes to mind.
Alex

"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
New Benevolent dictatorship?
Funny. I'd always thought that was an oxymoron.

But seriously, it seems to me the only way a dictatorship could be benevolent is when the dictator in question is benevelont. How often has that happened? I would wager that those dicatators who were considered beneveloent (can anybody name three?) were those who were *dethroned* in favor of the jackboot crowd. Just a guess, probably no accuraccy in that estimation, but what the hell.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
New The King is coming
that will solve all of our problems, and everyone will have food, drink, houses, world peace, etc.

His name is Jesus and he promised to return to become our new King. He is the only one that can set things right, all else are false leaders.

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New Indulge your fantasy.
But if that is all you do.. while Waiting for Godot (It's a play by Beckett) -- it's just an excuse to rationalize doing nothing at all. Why bother - when Something will swoop down and Make it All Well?

Y'know?
New It is a question of when
as in when will it happen? It could be tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next decade, next century, next thousand years, etc. We will never know when. So we just live the best we can for now and hope for a better tomorrow.

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New Overestimating marketing.
Again...you are basically saying that people are too stupid to be free to choose. Well...I'm not sure how far away from you I am on the relative intellect out there..but just because we feel we're smarter shouldn't give us the power nor authority to restrict their ability to get whatever the hell they want...even if >we< don't think they need it.

The American Way might not be pretty all the way around...but if you want to take it for its good points you also have to take it for its bad.

To the point of corps owing an injured public...I'd say take a look at class action and strict liability law. If you've been injured or harmed...money will make its way to you. We do need to limit attorney take from these proceedings though...but again...that would be a rant for another time.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Mood rings should have been illegal? :-P
New YES! Mine was always black :-)
New Wrongo!
I don't talk to my plumber that way because he works for a small business and doesn't make that much of a salary and would most likely agree with me that he isn't paid enough and his company keeps the lion's share of the money they collect from me. Plus that small business is worth under $1m dollars. We are not talking about Oil Companies, Dotcom Companies, etc here. We are talking about plumbing companies and what they pay their plumbers. If the plumber was rich, do you think he'd still be uncloging toliets, or would he quickly retire and buy a nice mansion in the country?

Not all rich people are evil, but a good majority of them are selfish and try to keep as much money as they can. Quit putting words in my mouth if you cannot prove your side of the argument, please don't resort to personal attacks n my character.





"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New Read one book.
Millionaire next door.

You may be in for a shock.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I'm already shocked
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743420373/qid=1013821894/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8275876-5199244|You mean this book?]

I saved and invested, lost a bundle in consumer and electronic stocks. I cut back expenses, I lived below my means, I chose my occupation wisely. I have done what the book says to do, and nothing worked. It is complete and utter 100% BS!

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
New Laugh.
Ok Norm.

Whatever.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Like I said
it just doesn't work unless one is willing to act like a rich jerk to become a rich jerk. Acting like a jerk is apparently rewarded in most firms.

"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
     Can he do it? - (mmoffitt) - (118)
         trickle down economics, smells like P - (boxley) - (1)
             "Austerity" my foot! - (wharris2)
         Fuzzy Math... - (jb4)
         Keeping your eye on the prize... - (screamer)
         I think he can - (ben_tilly)
         "Supply side" economics never works - (nking) - (112)
             Slight disagreement... - (jb4)
             Actually, upside down is how it all started. - (mmoffitt) - (104)
                 You do remember that government revenues increased, right? -NT - (wharris2) - (103)
                     Don't bother them with such trivial details. - (bepatient) - (101)
                         Jed Clampet syndrome - (nking)
                         Doh! forgot about the trivial detail syndrome - (wharris2) - (98)
                             Amen - (SpiceWare) - (97)
                                 How about 7% if you make a billion, 28% if you make 50K? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                     hang those suckers -NT - (wharris2)
                                     and where did you get that from? - (SpiceWare)
                                 Hold on a minute thar! - (nking) - (93)
                                     Elimination of loop holes is a major point of the Flat Tax -NT - (SpiceWare) - (92)
                                         I know, we'll have the Tooth Fairy write the new law. - (mmoffitt) - (91)
                                             Geesh, what 's up your ass? - (SpiceWare)
                                             Oh...you mean the guys who yell.... - (bepatient) - (89)
                                                 The flat tax will never work - (nking) - (1)
                                                     Whoa, there, it was Jerry Brown first! -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 On fairness. - (mmoffitt) - (86)
                                                     Different definitions of fair. -NT - (bepatient) - (85)
                                                         Re: Different definitions of fair. (more) - (bepatient) - (84)
                                                             Hasn't a sales tax been proven to be regressive? - (Brandioch) - (11)
                                                                 Thats why you exempt food and clothing. - (bepatient) - (10)
                                                                     And that makes it non-regressive? - (Brandioch) - (9)
                                                                         I never made that claim. - (bepatient) - (8)
                                                                             Just wondering why you're advocating it. - (Brandioch) - (7)
                                                                                 Entertaining yarn at IRS site. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                 If you insist... - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                                     It isn't me that has the problem. - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                         whatever. - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                             Target acquired. Proceeding with SLAM! - (Brandioch) - (2)
                                                                                                 Carry on... - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                                     "Less regressive" != progressive. - (Brandioch)
                                                             No one wants to punish anyone for success. - (mmoffitt) - (28)
                                                                 Well... - (bepatient) - (26)
                                                                     Let's get a couple things straight. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                                                                         Bravo!! - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                                                             Thanks ;-) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                         Lets do. - (bepatient) - (9)
                                                                             Iaccoca a good example - (Silverlock) - (8)
                                                                                 Incorrect assertion... - (bepatient) - (7)
                                                                                     So we misunderstand each other - (Silverlock) - (5)
                                                                                         Hard to get at the real heart of the matter.. - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                                                             Here's some real heart for you ;-) - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                                 Correction - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                                     "stated position" inferred from your posts. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                                         Ahhh, IC - (bepatient)
                                                                                     Re: Lee Iacocca - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                         Ahem...back to the original subject... - (Simon_Jester) - (7)
                                                                             On Force, study California in the 1940's. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                                                                 Cecil doesn't think so. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                                     Thanks - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                         Google on The Straight Dope - (Another Scott)
                                                                                     Heh. - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                 Evil Grin - before you start praising mass transit... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                                     RightO! Thanks for reiterating the original point! -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                     7 billion consumers? Me thinks you make a huge mistake - (wharris2) - (2)
                                                                         Missed a comma and 3 - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                             Sounds much better -NT - (wharris2)
                                                                     I'm not replying to this one__ baby from candy. (you owe me) -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                     That is capitalism for you - (nking)
                                                                 Re: No one wants to punish anyone for success. - (nking)
                                                             The rich get away with too much - (nking) - (42)
                                                                 Assertions without foundation. - (bepatient) - (41)
                                                                     The way it really is - (nking) - (7)
                                                                         Take a chill pill, ya whiner -NT - (bbronson) - (6)
                                                                             I already have - (nking) - (5)
                                                                                 They don't seem to be working. Please move it to Flames. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                     Thanks for expressing my thought so well, Scott. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                                     Wow. - (bepatient)
                                                                                     Sorry this IS Politics, rant away! -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                         Thank you - (nking)
                                                                     Re: the entire scrooges argument. - (mmoffitt) - (32)
                                                                         Progress. - (bepatient) - (31)
                                                                             You don't like "screwing"? How about... - (mmoffitt) - (25)
                                                                                 Bizness is morally neuter, ethically impoverished. - (Ashton) - (21)
                                                                                     I expected you here sooner ;-) - (bepatient) - (20)
                                                                                         I will never understand this. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                             Knock, knock... - (screamer) - (2)
                                                                                                 Simpler explanation. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                                     Fair enough... Now I understand... - (screamer)
                                                                                         My solution? has always been: actual OPERATING checks & - (Ashton) - (15)
                                                                                             Re: govt. - (a6l6e6x) - (14)
                                                                                                 Yes but.. in concentrating on that 'least' - (Ashton) - (13)
                                                                                                     Federal - (bepatient) - (12)
                                                                                                         Missed point, I think. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                                             You can't believe that - (bepatient)
                                                                                                         Bravo! - (screamer)
                                                                                                         That delicate balance.. - (Ashton) - (8)
                                                                                                             I hope this isn't lost. I have a question. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                                                                                                 anarchy and chaos is much preferable to a benevolent - (boxley)
                                                                                                                 I can't imagine such a construct as, - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                                                     But then, Plato's philosopher king, comes to mind. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                                                                 Benevolent dictatorship? - (Silverlock)
                                                                                                                 The King is coming - (nking) - (2)
                                                                                                                     Indulge your fantasy. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                                                         It is a question of when - (nking)
                                                                                 Overestimating marketing. - (bepatient)
                                                                                 Mood rings should have been illegal? :-P -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                     YES! Mine was always black :-) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                             Wrongo! - (nking) - (4)
                                                                                 Read one book. - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                     I'm already shocked - (nking) - (2)
                                                                                         Laugh. - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                             Like I said - (nking)
                         It doesn't pay me personally. - (mmoffitt)
                     You do remember the Debt sextupled, right? -NT - (mmoffitt)
             My favorite trivia question - (ben_tilly) - (5)
                 Some references. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Sorry, no good references - (ben_tilly)
                 Damn you, Ben. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                     I can but try :-) - (ben_tilly)
                 And what was the balance of trade? - (bepatient)

Kind of greenish blue, but not as greenish as, say, teal.
615 ms