Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:37:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2012 11:45:51 GMT -5
Response 407 is Very well stated. Thank you! If you make it, spend it the way you want to. Not the way the Government wants to. Get rid of the government completely... why not... then you can spend the majority of it on private security ... (if you can even make it without patent protection, etc...)
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 11:52:48 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, if an individual is being paid $8.50/hr for pottering around on the internet instead of doing the job for which he was hired, he's getting an outrageous salary, dancinmama. Does that clear things up for you?
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 11:54:20 GMT -5
You know that the majority of the stimulus was TAX CUTS. Why is it Obama has to account for how he will 'pay for' tax cuts.. but Romney, or any other republican, doesn't ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ... Oh, that's a cut... that's not spending... we'll still have revenue... gag... The economy record is NOT dismal. It is slow but steady growth of the private sector, shrinking the public sector, recovered stock market, record corporate profits, lowest individual taxes in 50 years.... Millions of people who are STILL unemployed. Millions of people who have simply given up on finding a job. The growth, if any at all, is way too slow for things to improve any time soon. Obama himself stated that the economy was in such bad shape that raising taxes on anyone would have a negative impact on economic growth. You can blame Bush for passing the tax cuts, but the fact that they are still in place lies with Obama.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 11:56:42 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, if an individual is being paid $8.50/hr for pottering around on the internet instead of doing the job for which he was hired, he's getting an outrageous salary, dancinmama. Does that clear things up for you? Yes it does, but most people would never have been able to extrapolate that from your original statement.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,835
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 20, 2012 12:02:17 GMT -5
Unless you are the owner of the company, employees who putter about on the Internet during their scheduled work hours (excluding lunch breaks) are stealing from their employers. If you have so much free time to surf the Internet or post on message boards, then you don't have enough work to keep you busy and are over paid for your product.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 12:05:47 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, if an individual is being paid $8.50/hr for pottering around on the internet instead of doing the job for which he was hired, he's getting an outrageous salary, dancinmama. Does that clear things up for you? Yes it does, but most people would never have been able to extrapolate that from your original statement. I think anyone who didn't have a preconceived notion of what they wanted to read into my post could have gotten that message quite easily, dancinmama. Then again, those wouldn't be the people who would be trying to tell me what I think.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 12:07:53 GMT -5
Unless you are the owner of the company, employees who putter about on the Internet during their scheduled work hours (excluding lunch breaks) are stealing from their employers. If you have so much free time to surf the Internet or post on message boards, then you don't have enough work to keep you busy and are over paid for your product. That's exactly what I meant, tennesseer. Nowhere did I indicate a salary range for the slackers. I will say most who make lower hourly wages aren't in a position to spend a lot of time surfing the internet. There are exceptions, though.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 12:18:14 GMT -5
The only thing anyone has said on the receiving end even remotely about 'fair share' .... is that in a society like ours, a minimal level of sustanance living should be guarenteed... for the benefit of ALL citizens and sustainability of our union. The 'fair share' that generally comes up is not in receiving, but in paying for... ie. if this system provides you with a much higher than average, in fact best in the world type of lifestyle, then your 'fair share' in supporting and sustaining that system is going to be higher as well... progressively and proportionately, like the benefits received from the system... Geez, how many times have I heard Obama say that everyone should pay their fair share so that everyone gets a fair shake. That to me indicates both giving and receiving and he never defines what he considers a fair shake to be. Personally I do not like the idea of the government guaranteeing a certain level of sustenance to every single citizen from the time they are born to the time they die. There are just too many people who will settle for the minimal sustenance rather than reaching their full potential within the society, whatever that might be. My preference is that the government, and state government at that, give every person the same opportunity to get a good education and let them do with that what they will. I also believe that they should provide safety nets along the way for people who for whatever reason find themselves in times of difficulty. We already have a progressive tax system. The question is how much more do you want those who earn more to pay, and at what point will that be counter productive to the growth of the overall economy? It is a balancing act and not as simple as Obama attempts to lead the American people to believe that it is.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 12:26:34 GMT -5
No, dancinmama, I'm not looking at the economy as a finite pie. Again, you're trying to tell me what I think. You can't do that because you don't know and you don't understand when I try to tell you, whether because I've failed to explain it properly or you've failed to give what I'm saying unbiased attention. I'm not talking about redistributing wealth. I'm talking about backing down those greedy expectations in all quarters. That's what I said. I said nothing about redistribution. That's your topic, not mine. I'd think that would have been clear when I said people don't need 3 SUVs, 6 wide-screen TVs, etc. It is not my topic; it is Obama's topic. That is what he wants to do.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 12:27:20 GMT -5
From what you said Obama has said, dancinmama, it sounds like he feels paying one's fair share gives everyone a fair shake. I'd agree with that, personally. I don't think our present system of taxation allows for that, however. It needs to be examined, evaluated, and changed. It's needed that for quite some time now. It didn't all start yesterday, and it won't all be fixed tomorrow.
We have safety nets in place for those who fall between the cracks. Are there those who misuse them? Yes, there are. Shall we, then, throw the baby out with the bathwater? Not on my watch. There are those who will not be helped by a "good education". They don't have the capacity to absorb the important aspects of that education. Shall we just let those starve? I'd rather save 10 of those and put up with one freeloader (while doing everything possible to catch and stop the freeloader). It's going to cost money to catch and stop those freeloaders, by the way. Lots of it.
Yes, it's a balancing act. It's not simple. There are a lot of nuances, and a lot of pitfalls on all sides of the equation.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 12:37:36 GMT -5
No, dancinmama, I'm not looking at the economy as a finite pie. Again, you're trying to tell me what I think. You can't do that because you don't know and you don't understand when I try to tell you, whether because I've failed to explain it properly or you've failed to give what I'm saying unbiased attention. I'm not talking about redistributing wealth. I'm talking about backing down those greedy expectations in all quarters. That's what I said. I said nothing about redistribution. That's your topic, not mine. I'd think that would have been clear when I said people don't need 3 SUVs, 6 wide-screen TVs, etc.It obviously is not clear to me what you are talking about. If people earn enough money to buy 3 SUVs, 6 wide-screen TVs, etc. and that is what they want to do with THEIR money, shouldn't they have the freedom to do that? I agree it is ridiculous to find the "need" to consume that much, but what kind of government are you proposing where you limit peoples' right to consume? Some people are into clothes and shoes. Are you going to limit how many pairs of pants they can have in their closet? That seems pretty radica I am not being sarcastic.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 12:47:08 GMT -5
From what you said Obama has said, dancinmama, it sounds like he feels paying one's fair share gives everyone a fair shake. I'd agree with that, personally. I don't think our present system of taxation allows for that, however. It needs to be examined, evaluated, and changed. It's needed that for quite some time now. It didn't all start yesterday, and it won't all be fixed tomorrow. We have safety nets in place for those who fall between the cracks. Are there those who misuse them? Yes, there are. Shall we, then, throw the baby out with the bathwater? Not on my watch. There are those who will not be helped by a "good education". They don't have the capacity to absorb the important aspects of that education. Shall we just let those starve? I'd rather save 10 of those and put up with one freeloader (while doing everything possible to catch and stop the freeloader). It's going to cost money to catch and stop those freeloaders, by the way. Lots of it. Yes, it's a balancing act. It's not simple. There are a lot of nuances, and a lot of pitfalls on all sides of the equation. Neither you or Obama has defined what that fair shake is or how much more you want the wealthy to pay and how you are going to "redistribute" those funds so that everyone gets that fair shake. When have I or anyone, suggested that people should be left to starve? That is exactly what Obama wants people to believe of the fiscal conservatives.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 12:47:29 GMT -5
LOL!! No, you and I just don't communicate, dancinmama. I'm not looking to limit anything. What's happening right now, economically, is GOING TO limit this mad rush to consumption. It's not going to take government action. The economy is imploding, and it's imploding due to greed. Those who have managed to rape the system already, to the point they're so wealthy they're beyond any real trouble, will be just fine. Those grasping their way up are going to experience a very uncomfortable downward tumble. Those lower down the food chain are going to suffer bigtime. I firmly believe it's too late to stop this. Those at the top will rise. Those just below, and lower, will fall. Some will fall right out of existence.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,653
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 20, 2012 12:50:44 GMT -5
...but what kind of government are you proposing where you limit peoples' right to consume? Some people are into clothes and shoes. Are you going to limit how many pairs of pants they can have in their closet? That seems pretty radica I am not being sarcastic. Reality is going to limit how many pairs of pants people have. The standard of living that a majority of Americans have is going to decrease. And it isn't government that is going to do that. It is people in the wider world who are not going to support America controlling the percentage of the world's wealth that we did in the past. The time when we could export poverty so that those at the bottom of the US economy had it better than most in other countries is over. When those with a little more weren't seriously impacted by this, it wasn't a big problem. Now that they are slipping closer to those hanging out in the safety net, they are getting upset.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 12:51:43 GMT -5
If you want details on how a fair shake is to be achieved, you'd have to ask the president. For me, a fair shake defines itself. It's fair to everyone. I don't presume to know what someone else feels needs to be done to make something fair, dancinmama. I just know what the word "fair" and the term "fair shake" means. The one who keeps bringing up redistribution is you, not me. You keep assigning it to me. Own it. It's yours, not mine.
Oh, and nobody said you'd suggested people should be left to starve. What I said was, if we don't provide for those unable to provide for themselves, they WILL starve.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:37:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2012 12:55:42 GMT -5
Equal opportunities does not mean equal outcomes.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,835
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 20, 2012 13:04:41 GMT -5
"Finally I recalled the stopgap solution of a great princess who was told that the peasants had no bread, and who responded: "Let them eat brioche."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau quoting an unnamed princess (years before Marie Antoinette was an adult).
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 13:13:23 GMT -5
LOL!! No, you and I just don't communicate, dancinmama. I'm not looking to limit anything. What's happening right now, economically, is GOING TO limit this mad rush to consumption. It's not going to take government action. The economy is imploding, and it's imploding due to greed. Those who have managed to rape the system already, to the point they're so wealthy they're beyond any real trouble, will be just fine. Those grasping their way up are going to experience a very uncomfortable downward tumble. Those lower down the food chain are going to suffer bigtime. I firmly believe it's too late to stop this. Those at the top will rise. Those just below, and lower, will fall. Some will fall right out of existence. On that I agree with you 100%, but I haven't given up and I certainly do not think that anything that Obama has done will stop it. I am not a big Wall Street advocate. I'm a fiscal conservative who wants to give people every opportunity to reach their full potential within the society and take personal responsibility for the decisions that they make. It does not mean that we leave people out in the cold or let them starve. The biggest threat to our nation right now is this debt. If we don't get that under control we will not have the ability to take care of the weakest among us and we will not have the ability to even defend ourselves against factions who would prefer to just wipe us off the face of the earth. Not everyone who is wealthy is greedy. Millions of people in this country get up and work hard every day for whatever it is that they have whether it be 3 SUVs in the garage or money in the bank to pay for their retirement or their children's education or to take a nice vacation. I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 13:14:36 GMT -5
Equal opportunities does not mean equal outcomes. Precisely. There are those who cannot benefit even if opportunities are equal. This is through no fault of their own. It is these to whom we owe a decent life. I'm not saying they should have 3 SUVs. I'm saying I'm willing to give up 2 SUVs to give them a place to live, good food to eat, medical care, decent clothing, and a chance to feel somewhat productive (if possible). I don't feel this robs me of anything. In fact, I feel it's more like I've been given a gift ... the opportunity to help someone who needs my help.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,835
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 20, 2012 13:18:51 GMT -5
One of my favorite quotes:
To those that give, may they never remember. To those that receive, may they never forget.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 13:20:24 GMT -5
We differ only a bit, if the truth be told, dancinmama. I believe most people in this country are greedy. I don't deny I've been there myself and it took me a bit to wake up to my own reality. I don't need to drive a Mercedes when another, who has done the best he/she can, is living in the street, or barely getting by. Yes, I need to provide for myself and my family, but I can do that without a McMansion, a Mercedes, and a jewelry box full of diamonds. There doesn't need to be a sable in every closet. I don't need it, and I'm not so great and glorious I deserve it. I need to look around me and actually empathize with the plight of others. I need to reach into that morass and help to make it better. That's what I need to do, dancinmama. That's what will make it better from my point of view. All the SUVs in the world won't buy the satisfaction one smiling face can bring when the pain is taken away. Call me what you like. That's what I've learned in 70 years.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 13:26:11 GMT -5
Equal opportunities does not mean equal outcomes. You're exactly right. There will never be equal outcomes because within the limits of the law, we all have free will. The choices that we make throughout or lives will have a great impact on our lives, our happiness, our economic success.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 13:30:10 GMT -5
The exercise of free will, no matter how well it is applied, cannot overcome all adversities, dancinmama. That's what we absolutely must not forget.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,653
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 20, 2012 13:31:34 GMT -5
...within the limits of the law, we all have free will. ... Free will is not limited by "the law".
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 14:55:19 GMT -5
We differ only a bit, if the truth be told, dancinmama. I believe most people in this country are greedy. I don't deny I've been there myself and it took me a bit to wake up to my own reality. I don't need to drive a Mercedes when another, who has done the best he/she can, is living in the street, or barely getting by. Yes, I need to provide for myself and my family, but I can do that without a McMansion, a Mercedes, and a jewelry box full of diamonds. There doesn't need to be a sable in every closet. I don't need it, and I'm not so great and glorious I deserve it. I need to look around me and actually empathize with the plight of others. I need to reach into that morass and help to make it better. That's what I need to do, dancinmama. That's what will make it better from my point of view. All the SUVs in the world won't buy the satisfaction one smiling face can bring when the pain is taken away. Call me what you like. That's what I've learned in 70 years. I empathize with the plight of others as well. It is devastating what this economy has done to people. It is demoralizing and depressing. I want people to be able to get back to work and regain their dignity and pride and some semblance of hope for the future - both theirs and that of our country; but I still do not believe that there is any obligation for the government to give anyone a "fair share". The government should only go so far as to provide people with as equal an opportunity as possible to get a good education and then allow people carve out their own path, based on the choices that they make, but giving cradle to grave assistance to only the weakest among us. Don't forget that the federal government and the politicians that run it (on both sides of the aisle) are also greedy. They are not and have never been good stewards of taxpayer dollars. All they really care about is getting reelected. They take our money and are blatantly wasteful with it. They have a total disregard for how hard we work to earn it. And what do we have to show for it?....millions of people who are suffering because of an economy that is in the toilet and $16T worth of debt.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 15:05:03 GMT -5
The exercise of free will, no matter how well it is applied, cannot overcome all adversities, dancinmama. That's what we absolutely must not forget. That was my point. Many times free will leads to choices that self-destructive.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 15:11:35 GMT -5
And my point, dancinmama, is that some folks aren't self-destructive, at all. The potential isn't there from the get-go, and that isn't their doing. They can't grab that golden ring no matter how hard they try. These are the ones I'll fight for, and the ones I sincerely hope are not forgotten in the rush to "get mine and the devil take the hindmost".
I never said government wasn't greedy. Government is made up of people. People are greedy. Did I not say that?
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 15:12:41 GMT -5
...within the limits of the law, we all have free will. ... Free will is not limited by "the law". Of course not. When it is exercised outside the law, we face prosecution.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 15:14:19 GMT -5
And my point, dancinmama, is that some folks aren't self-destructive, at all. The potential isn't there from the get-go, and that isn't their doing. They can't grab that golden ring no matter how hard they try. These are the ones I'll fight for, and the ones I sincerely hope are not forgotten in the rush to "get mine and the devil take the hindmost". I never said government wasn't greedy. Government is made up of people. People are greedy. Did I not say that? And I would define them as the weakest among us and they should be provided for. I think I have stated that several times.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Oct 20, 2012 15:18:46 GMT -5
And my point, dancinmama, is that some folks aren't self-destructive, at all. The potential isn't there from the get-go, and that isn't their doing. They can't grab that golden ring no matter how hard they try. These are the ones I'll fight for, and the ones I sincerely hope are not forgotten in the rush to "get mine and the devil take the hindmost". I never said government wasn't greedy. Government is made up of people. People are greedy. Did I not say that?I just wanted to clarify the connection.
|
|