1 of 3
1
Is plunder groundless?
Posted: 08 June 2011 05:02 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03

I would like to talk about the issue of plunder and whether or not it is groundless.

 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2011 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
neolib=plndr - 08 June 2011 05:02 AM

I would like to talk about the issue of plunder and whether or not it is groundless.

Depends on what you mean by plunder I suppose.
I found this quote from a web site attacking Wall Street.

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men,
they create for themselves,
in the course of time,
a legal system that authorizes it,
and a moral code that glorifies it.”
– Political economist Frederic Bastiat, The Law [1850]

The “great” civilizations achieved their “greatness” through plunder. Egypt, Greece, Rome, England, America.

It maybe an evolutionary process that despite what one thinks of it is bound to run it’s course. It seems that life in general is selfish. When one has gained the upper hand wrt the control of resources why should they relinquish it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2011 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2717
Joined  2011-04-24

Be more specific,by groundless do you mean morally,economically,socially?

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2011 04:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I agree with M-A.  You need to clarify your propositions and conclusions before we know what we are discussing.

However, from your screen name, I get the feeling that you are asking the same sort of question a Libertarian asked when it was his turn to run a Sunday morning forum.  It was something like:  “Is progressive taxation stealing from the rich?”

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2011 02:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03

“Ann Coulter, lets talk about saving the planet!” Her speech is of plunder to me, for example. I think what she is doing is groundless, it is for nothing. That is what I mean by plunder—the breaking of things, etc. I think plunder is for nothing and that it only leads to further breaking if you will. And as crazy as it sounds, this is why I think the planet is melting. So for you what say ye, is plunder groundless?

[ Edited: 12 June 2011 11:21 AM by neolib=plndr ]
 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2011 02:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03
mid atlantic - 08 June 2011 02:43 PM

Be more specific,by groundless do you mean morally,economically,socially?

Well, name one for yourself…say ‘socially’. OK, what of the privatizing of public spaces including libraries? I think that that qualifies as plunder. Do you think it is groundless to go after public libraries w/ ‘budget cuts’ while not regulating large financial institutions in the least, is this groundless?

 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2011 03:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2717
Joined  2011-04-24
neolib=plndr - 10 June 2011 02:34 AM
mid atlantic - 08 June 2011 02:43 PM

Be more specific,by groundless do you mean morally,economically,socially?

Well, name one for yourself…say ‘socially’. OK, what of the privatizing of public spaces including libraries? I think that that qualifies as plunder. Do you think it is groundless to go after public libraries w/ ‘budget cuts’ while not regulating large financial institutions in the least, is this groundless?

I wasn’t aware that libraries are being privatized.That sounds bad,but I don’t know much about the situation.Plunder isnt the word that comes to mind when I hear about small institutions being messed with,but I suppose it is a meaningful way of describing it.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2011 04:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03

...so I am asking still, is plunder groundless? It is not a trick question but it certainly breaks the ice, no pun intended. And it is OK if it understood that plunder is not groundless, I would simply ask why…where, how or when? It is big question—at least for me, so please think it through. Is Plunder Groundless?

 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2011 05:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

No, it’s not a trick question - it’s a stupid question.  You are not defining what you mean by plunder.  And you are not defining what you mean by groundless.  For example, a manufacturer who moves his production to a third world country, lays off his U.S. workers, pays the third world workers on tenth of what the U.S. workers were paid, and sells his product at the original price in the U.S. is now making a huge additional profit.  That is, to my mind, plindering the U.S. economy and workers, but it’s certainly not groundless from his perspective because he is increasing his wealth.

I’ve responded to both your words and showed that each is dependent on the point of view of the specific person.  And, of course, I’ve only used one of the many definitions of each of those words in my example.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2011 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03
Occam. - 13 June 2011 05:10 PM

No, it’s not a trick question - it’s a stupid question.  You are not defining what you mean by plunder.  And you are not defining what you mean by groundless.  For example, a manufacturer who moves his production to a third world country, lays off his U.S. workers, pays the third world workers on tenth of what the U.S. workers were paid, and sells his product at the original price in the U.S. is now making a huge additional profit.  That is, to my mind, plindering the U.S. economy and workers, but it’s certainly not groundless from his perspective because he is increasing his wealth.

I’ve responded to both your words and showed that each is dependent on the point of view of the specific person.  And, of course, I’ve only used one of the many definitions of each of those words in my example.

Occam

  Stupid, really. OK so much for your ad hominem response. I am accustomed to being attacked for my question—you are not the first. I get called ‘stupid person’ ALL the time for asking the same question everyday, trust me. No one seems to be able to grasp the question so the typical response is, ‘you stupid person, you!’ LOL I think the question actually offends many, many people. All of this is sort of metaphor for what is happening globally. If one understands something that is true to be true all be it hidden, one must ultimately pay the price for seeing it, no? This seems to be the case for me in our conversation.
  Per your example of atomizing Labor in this country, “...but it’s certainly not groundless from his perspective because he is increasing his wealth.” This person you speak of doesn’t have to recognize what is true wealth but the definition still stands. As mentioned previously I understand that no one can break anything to prove anything—this has never happened in human history. It can’t be ‘wealth’ that is garnered by your person…it literally can’t be true.
  Further, one can not have a perspective concerning the melting of the planet—you can only accept or deny the occurrence, that is all. One can never have ‘perspective’ concerning true wealth, it is not a matter of opinion—it can’t be. Who can claim to undermine sovereignty/Democracy in the name of ‘wealth’, who can do this? It is groundless, it is something else other than wealth.
  And it is OK that you spit in my face here in this ‘free thinking’ forum, I suppose it is par for the course if one can bring something new.
  Allow just one more example; no one can ever claim to believe that a man walked on water and rose from the dead. Why, because it can’t be true? You can’t claim belief in something that can’t be true, you can only undermine those who see the fallacious nature of the claim. Thus, the only evidence there is for such a thing is the breaking of the rational society that will not accept the lie.
  This is plunder and is groundless and will only lead to further breaking of ‘social interactions’ no? This is why the planet is melting—because it doesn’t work. The only evidence your person has for their wealth is, (whispering…)he will have to ‘break’ something else(i.e. uphold other inefficiencies). LOL
  He could side w/ the Defense Of Marriage Act or in the ‘past’ he supported the rewriting of FISA in June of 2008, for example. Do you see now?

[ Edited: 13 June 2011 11:39 PM by neolib=plndr ]
 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2011 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03

You have seen this… http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110613/us_yblog_thelookout/more-than-6-billion-in-iraq-reconstruction-funds-lost
What is purpose for stealing all this tax payer $$$, over $6,000,000,000.00 although I’ve read that it is as much as $8bn- shinkwraped on approx 17 skids , it supply can’t be random theft? But the military is claiming the biggest threat to ‘sovereignty’ is an open internet where ‘cyber criminals roam like jellyfish’ looking for victims like you and I. And with trillions stolen via the globe trotting victimizing banking system it is laughable this joke of ‘sovereignty’ told by the military—which seems more like MI-FI; Military Fiction, than anything else.

 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2011 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
neolib=plndr - 14 June 2011 08:27 AM

You have seen this… http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110613/us_yblog_thelookout/more-than-6-billion-in-iraq-reconstruction-funds-lost
What is purpose for stealing all this tax payer $$$, over $6,000,000,000.00 although I’ve read that it is as much as $8bn- shinkwraped on approx 17 skids , it supply can’t be random theft? But the military is claiming the biggest threat to ‘sovereignty’ is an open internet where ‘cyber criminals roam like jellyfish’ looking for victims like you and I. And with trillions stolen via the globe trotting victimizing banking system it is laughable this joke of ‘sovereignty’ told by the military—which seems more like MI-FI; Military Fiction, than anything else.

The government prints money. Maybe it’s like play money to them. The Federal Government is used to handing out billions to contractors so maybe they didn’t care enough to actually account where all the money was going.

This I think is SOP(Standard Operation Procedure) with the government. People like Ross Perot got rich off of government contracts.

So the government doesn’t care because they print what they need and leave it to the taxpayers to pay this debt.

I’d guess the government and business are in bed together in order to plunder the resources of the America tax payer?

Is it groundless? People do what they can get away with. The system seems set up to allow them to get away with it.

I don’t know, I don’t have a lot so maybe that makes someone like me or you empathic to the plight of the poor. Maybe the rich and powerful pay lip service for publicity and to win elections, but it’s not really in their nature to care.

Maybe there are a few exceptions some who started out poor. But I wonder if I was born to a rich powerful family and held a rich powerful position, how much would I care.

[ Edited: 14 June 2011 11:23 AM by Gnostikosis ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2011 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03
Gnostikosis - 14 June 2011 10:48 AM
neolib=plndr - 14 June 2011 08:27 AM

You have seen this… http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110613/us_yblog_thelookout/more-than-6-billion-in-iraq-reconstruction-funds-lost
What is purpose for stealing all this tax payer $$$, over $6,000,000,000.00 although I’ve read that it is as much as $8bn- shinkwraped on approx 17 skids , it supply can’t be random theft? But the military is claiming the biggest threat to ‘sovereignty’ is an open internet where ‘cyber criminals roam like jellyfish’ looking for victims like you and I. And with trillions stolen via the globe trotting victimizing banking system it is laughable this joke of ‘sovereignty’ told by the military—which seems more like MI-FI; Military Fiction, than anything else.

The government prints money. Maybe it’s like play money to them. The Federal Government is used to handing out billions to contractors so maybe they didn’t care enough to actually account where all the money was going.

This I think is SOP(Standard Operation Procedure) with the government. People like Ross Perot got rich off of government contracts.

So the government doesn’t care because they print what they need and leave it to the taxpayers to pay this debt.

So I guess the government and business are in bed together in order to plunder the resources of the America tax payer?

Is it groundless? People do what they can get away with. The system seems set up to allow them to get away with it.

So I don’t know, I don’t have a lot so maybe that makes someone like me or you empathic to the plight of the poor. Maybe the rich and powerful pay lip service for publicity and to win elections, but it’s not really in their nature to care.

Maybe there are a few exceptions some who started out poor. But I wonder if I was born to a rich powerful family and held a rich powerful position, how much would I care.

...is it groundless, what do you think? Are you saying you don’t know if it is groundless, I don’t understand your answer? So empathy is relative, do you mean this? What if ‘empathy’ were an absolute, ‘concrete’—then what? Regardless of one’s station plunder is groundless, it is not an issue of relativity. If this IS the case that empathy is relative then I ask, where? I think that it is divisive to understand empathy as relative or exceptional.

 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2011 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
neolib=plndr - 14 June 2011 11:34 AM

...is it groundless, what do you think? Are you saying you don’t know if it is groundless, I don’t understand your answer? So empathy is relative, do you mean this? What if ‘empathy’ were an absolute, ‘concrete’—then what? Regardless of one’s station plunder is groundless, it is not an issue of relativity. If this IS the case that empathy is relative then I ask, where? I think that it is divisive to understand empathy as relative or exceptional.

I was referring to your example of the missing 6 billion. If a country’s government allows stuff like this to happen, where’s the theft?

As far as empathy, I don’t really expect you and I or someone else to have the same empathy for the same thing. What reason would you have for thinking of empathy in absolute terms.

Sure it’s divisive. The struggle for life is a battle over resources. Groups work together to gain control of certain resources but some other group is going to lose out. It’s the nature of people to have different values. Support different groups.

Is survival groundless? Groups that are successful are going to grow larger and they will eventually need to “plunder” the resources of other groups. The US plunders the oil resources of other nations. The rich and powerful of those other nations benefit from that plunder. The poor of those nations get poorer. The US needs the oil to continue to survive. To be a “super power”.

Everyone is happy as long as the resources hold out. But as I think I pointed out earlier the US got where it is though the plunder of other groups. If not them then someone else.

Maybe not now but at some point plunder equals survival. If you are part of a group and that group is dying out because of a lack of resources are you just going to let that group die out? I don’t know. Maybe some would. But then that is what happens. That group dies and other groups who fought for and won control continue to survive. I suspect the instinct to plunder promotes survival.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2011 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6174
Joined  2009-02-26
neolib=plndr - 14 June 2011 11:34 AM
Gnostikosis - 14 June 2011 10:48 AM
neolib=plndr - 14 June 2011 08:27 AM

You have seen this… http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110613/us_yblog_thelookout/more-than-6-billion-in-iraq-reconstruction-funds-lost
What is purpose for stealing all this tax payer $$$, over $6,000,000,000.00 although I’ve read that it is as much as $8bn- shinkwraped on approx 17 skids , it supply can’t be random theft? But the military is claiming the biggest threat to ‘sovereignty’ is an open internet where ‘cyber criminals roam like jellyfish’ looking for victims like you and I. And with trillions stolen via the globe trotting victimizing banking system it is laughable this joke of ‘sovereignty’ told by the military—which seems more like MI-FI; Military Fiction, than anything else.

The government prints money. Maybe it’s like play money to them. The Federal Government is used to handing out billions to contractors so maybe they didn’t care enough to actually account where all the money was going.
This I think is SOP(Standard Operation Procedure) with the government. People like Ross Perot got rich off of government contracts.
So the government doesn’t care because they print what they need and leave it to the taxpayers to pay this debt.

So I guess the government and business are in bed together in order to plunder the resources of the America tax payer?
Is it groundless? People do what they can get away with. The system seems set up to allow them to get away with it.
So I don’t know, I don’t have a lot so maybe that makes someone like me or you empathic to the plight of the poor. Maybe the rich and powerful pay lip service for publicity and to win elections, but it’s not really in their nature to care.

Maybe there are a few exceptions some who started out poor. But I wonder if I was born to a rich powerful family and held a rich powerful position, how much would I care.

...is it groundless, what do you think? Are you saying you don’t know if it is groundless, I don’t understand your answer? So empathy is relative, do you mean this? What if ‘empathy’ were an absolute, ‘concrete’—then what? Regardless of one’s station plunder is groundless, it is not an issue of relativity. If this IS the case that empathy is relative then I ask, where? I think that it is divisive to understand empathy as relative or exceptional.

I’ll put in my two cents worth…. cheese

First, theoretically, government itself is a non-profit organization. However, due to our current election system, individuals in government may be bought and become corrupted. Witness the ever increasing number of ex government officials becoming lobbyists for big business. I believe that this vulgar practice has been somewhat addressed with new laws imposing a waiting period before an ex representative can become a lobbyist.

Second, theoretically, government (law) is designed to protect individuals from being plundered. But we have come to a point where greed is being encouraged by the popular notion that unbridled Capitalism is a good thing, under the guise of freedom from government interference.

I watched the Republican debate (?) yesterday and was amazed by the duplicity of thought expressed by all the republican candidates.
Example.  Every single candidate espoused the woes of “too big government” and deficit spending from government interference to save jobs, while espousing that “we” need to create jobs. Who is the “we”? The government?  No one addressed that question.
I heard no one say that outsourcing jobs to China and India would naturally result in a “job deficit” here, and that government (the people) should impose penalties for shipping jobs overseas and impose tariffs on cheap imports of goods which could be manufactured here.
No one mentioned that a person with a job pays taxes (including social services employees) which would reduce deficit spending and that a person with income can afford to pay a little more for goods manufactured locally. The price we pay for cheap imports is deficit spending, loss of jobs, lower revenues and an increased demand for government assistance in health care and retirement.
Everyone there decried the bail-outs as a waste of tax revenues, but hailed tax cuts for the wealthy as being essential for job creation. This is patently untrue. A wealthy person has enough money to hire a person, if that is required by his company. To give money to a wealthy person, who does not need additional help is a fruitless waste. He will just put that money in the bank and it is no longer available in the open market. Tax incentives to marginal companies are a good thing for job creation, but only after they actually can show that they have INDEED created new jobs. Then a tax cut can be justified by the increased revenue these job will create.

The net effect of the debate was that no one said anything substantial at all. How could they? Their sponsors are the very people who are plundering the nation’s wealth and resources. The healthy stock market in spite of the nation’s economic malaise is a clear indication that our socio/economic system is terribly askew.

IMO, the main problem is that our current system not only allows plunder, but is in effect encouraging it by shirking its responsibilities towards “We the people”. We have entered an economic race, where we started in first place but due to lack of government imposed discipline on the greedy, we are rapidly running out of resources to plunder and soon we shall have a wasteland, akin to some of third world countries.

A civilized nation should be founded on a socio/economic system which balances economic freedom with social responsibility. In the past these principles were observed and implemented and we did quite well (a surplus under Clinton’s econmic policies of higher taxes on those who can afford it, while stimulating job creation with tax incentives after job creation).  Today all we have is a capitalist economic free-for-all, where the wealthy are rewarded (tax cuts) for plundering the nation’s natural and human resources.
How can it be allowed that millionaires pay less taxes than a person earning less than a hundred thousand?
Taxation is the only means of a government (we the people) to control pure greed while creating revenue to meet its social responsibilities.

[ Edited: 14 June 2011 05:25 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2011 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 14 June 2011 04:54 PM

I’ll put in my two cents worth…. cheese

I’ll put in my 1/2 cent worth to your two cents…  smile

First, theoretically, government itself is a non-profit organization.

Bull-puckey….  cool smirk

However, due to our current election system, individuals in government may be bought and become corrupted. Witness the ever increasing number of ex government officials becoming lobbyists for big business. I believe that this vulgar practice has been somewhat addressed with new laws imposing a waiting period before an ex representative can become a lobbyist.

Oh… never mind. Though I think this only part of the problem.

Politicians can become wealthy, powerful or both or live as the wealthy by having tax payers foot the bill for their extravagance. So while the government need have no profit agenda, individuals within government can certainly game the system to their benefit. The behavior is usually unethical and sometimes politicians get caught with their pants down but what about those who don’t?

Second, theoretically, government (law) is designed to protect individuals from being plundered. But we have come to a point where greed is being encouraged by the popular notion that unbridled Capitalism is a good thing, under the guise of freedom from government interference.

Nothing wrong with rational regulation, whoever sometimes regulation is used to limit choice.

For example in Calif they are trying to pass a law that prevents stores that use self-check out from selling alcohol. The reasoning given is to prevent minors from being able to purchase. However the real reason is the politician who put up this bill is supported by a grocery workers union. A number of store have sprung up that only uses self check-out registers. It reduces labor costs so they can sell groceries at a cheaper cost. This will actually cause these smaller store to lose a lot of revenue and customers.

I watched the Republican debate (?) yesterday and was amazed by the duplicity of thought expressed by all the republican candidates.
Example.  Every single candidate espoused the woes of “too big government” and deficit spending from government interference to save jobs, while espousing that “we” need to create jobs. Who is the “we”? The government?  No one addressed that question.
I heard no one say that outsourcing jobs to China and India would naturally result in a “job deficit” here, and that government (the people) should impose penalties for shipping jobs overseas and impose tariffs on cheap imports of goods which could be manufactured here.

I suspect republican need give lip-service to their voter base’s ideology in order to get elected. So who’s at fault here? The politician or the people who put them in office because they hear what they want to hear.

The masses have little time for rational arguments. They want to be entertained by political rhetoric. That’s who usually gets elected.

No one mentioned that a person with a job pays taxes (including social services employees) which would reduce deficit spending and that a person with income can afford to pay a little more for goods manufactured locally. The price we pay for cheap imports is deficit spending, loss of jobs, lower revenues and an increased demand for government assistance in health care and retirement.

Some economic wizard will probably correct me on this. However, aren’t we just returning the money owed to the federal reserve? Eventually all of the money gets taxed back to the FR but that just pays back what was originally taken out. We actually need to make additional revenue by producing goods to export to other countries in order to have a surplus to cover what the FR charges us to first print the money and to cover the interest of any money borrow.

Service workers don’t cover the cost to run government, the cost to run our money supply. In the case of government as you pointed out it’s non-profit. So the tax payer base has to produce goods to actually cover government deficit.

Everyone there decried the bail-outs as a waste of tax revenues, but hailed tax cuts for the wealthy as being essential for job creation. This is patently untrue. A wealthy person has enough money to hire a person, if that is required by his company. To give money to a wealthy person, who does not need additional help is a fruitless waste. He will just put that money in the bank and it is no longer available in the open market. Tax incentives to marginal companies are a good thing for job creation, but only after they actually can show that they have INDEED created new jobs. Then a tax cut can be justified by the increased revenue these job will create.

Well just from a business perspective, businesses aren’t in this economy going to create any jobs their current revenue can’t cover.  If they are already making a surplus/profit from their current labor force they don’t need to create any additional jobs. They need more work then they can currently handle and the surplus revenue to cover the cost or at least have an immediate guarantee return on their investment.

The net effect of the debate was that no one said anything substantial at all. How could they? Their sponsors are the very people who are plundering the nation’s wealth and resources. The healthy stock market in spite of the nation’s economic malaise is a clear indication that our socio/economic system is terribly askew.

Well, I generally think politicians never say anything substantial so….

IMO, the main problem is that our current system not only allows plunder, but is in effect encouraging it by shirking its responsibilities towards “We the people”. We have entered an economic race, where we started in first place but due to lack of government imposed discipline on the greedy, we are rapidly running out of resources to plunder and soon we shall have a wasteland, akin to some of third world countries.

Sure, I just don’t see either political party moving to fix this. Seems to me they are trying to bolster up the status quo as long as possible and leave the problems for future generations while giving lip-service to BS rhetoric that gets them elected.

A civilized nation should be founded on a socio/economic system which balances economic freedom with social responsibility. In the past these principles were observed and implemented and we did quite well (a surplus under Clinton’s econmic policies of higher taxes on those who can afford it, while stimulating job creation with tax incentives after job creation).  Today all we have is a capitalist economic free-for-all, where the wealthy are rewarded (tax cuts) for plundering the nation’s natural and human resources.
How can it be allowed that millionaires pay less taxes than a person earning less than a hundred thousand?
Taxation is the only means of a government (we the people) to control pure greed while creating revenue to meet its social responsibilities.

Politicians and business are in bed together in this IMO, Republicans and Democrats. No one is guarding the hen house since the American public is more concerned about things like America Idol and Youtube.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1