Why I dont buy the "tea party" protests

reply to post by Jenna


Jenna the planet earth is a closed finite system with a finite amount of resources which may be extracted put through the value added process and then discarded.

this is the beginning and end of capitalism, our planet and its finite resources.


several times you talk about money leaving the country, business leaving the country, and the like. this is and should be legal, but once upon a time we had taxes and tariffs on any commodity, including money that crossed our boarders. this is what would prevent money and jobs from leaving the nation.


Your proposal, making it more affordable (cheaper) for business to manufacture here makes little sense to me. it is cheaper for them in other less developed nations because the people get paid next to nothing and there are no ethical standards for the treatment of workers or for the environmental impacts of the production process. what you seem to be pushing for, although not openly, is making the USA a 2nd or 3rd world nation as well. why would we want to do that?

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by mental modulator
I understand your position, I do...

But one man with $450,000,000,000.00 ?

If that's how much they earned, then it's theirs plain and simple. I can't understand why anyone would want that much money, but I've never really cared how much money I have so long as my families needs are met.

Try looking at it from the other side. Imagine for a moment that you came from a working class family. One day you have a brilliant idea for a service or product and figure out how to make money off it. A few decades later you have millions of dollars from the work you put into selling your service or product. You went from almost losing everything trying to get your idea off the ground to being very well off. Would you think it was right for someone else to come in and say that you shouldn't have that much money because you don't need it? You might not need it, and if you have millions you likely don't need all of it, but that isn't the point. You worked your entire life to get to where you are and someone else gets to decide whether or not you should have the money that came from all your work? Does that really seem right to you?

I agree that there are very few people who could make a legitimate claim to needing millions upon millions of dollars. And I agree that if you have that much you should want to help others with it. BUT it is not my place to tell someone else what to do with the money they earned, just as it isn't yours or anyone else's. We can share our opinions about it, but the final decision is not and should not be ours to make.

What I am trying to say is this amassed wealth is funneled to other entities
( CORPORATIONS ) and in turn these entities lobby our politicians and often use our
political system for the benefit of that amassed wealth, in order to amass more wealth, which is funneled back into the system to further benefit that mass of money and a few individuals .

America and "LIBERTY" is at the will of this machine - IF you think the government is going to change without changing this influence,,,well....


Unfortunately the attitude that it is alright to CHIT on us via lobby, but it is not right to
regulate or tax via the PEOPLES HOUSE is a purposely nurtured sentiment. The Serfs in the days of old kept each other in virtual slavery by using the same sort of guilt. Have the people police each other to ensure dominance, in this case an AMERICAN verson, in days past it was birth right, now its "work ethic" $10,000.00 a day work ethic .

The chains of partisanship are more than just party - it is thinking and value placed upon human created concepts, often invented in the first place to cement status by
the elite.

Money is finite - we will compete with $.55 a day labor - to protect this ideal -

Guess what happens when you have direct competition with such a low bottom line?

Funny enough is the government is the only entity we have that could compete with the POWER Conglomerates posses.

KILL the government!, compete with India!, lower WAGES! oooops

Originally posted by Animal
Jenna the planet earth is a closed finite system with a finite amount of resources which may be extracted put through the value added process and then discarded.

We were talking about the US, not the entire planet. The US is by no means closed or finite, and while our resources may be finite on this planet, it is not a closed system either. The earth is affected by it's environment (space) and things that happen in that environment (passing meteors, the phases of the moon, solar flares, etc.), therefore it is not a closed system.

several times you talk about money leaving the country, business leaving the country, and the like. this is and should be legal, but once upon a time we had taxes and tariffs on any commodity, including money that crossed our boarders. this is what would prevent money and jobs from leaving the nation.

Yes I have, because that is what has been happening for years now. Taxes and tariffs might very well help.

Your proposal, making it more affordable (cheaper) for business to manufacture here makes little sense to me. it is cheaper for them in other less developed nations because the people get paid next to nothing and there are no ethical standards for the treatment of workers or for the environmental impacts of the production process. what you seem to be pushing for, although not openly, is making the USA a 2nd or 3rd world nation as well. why would we want to do that?

So giving businesses a reason to stay here and employ people here doesn't make any sense? Have you not heard of the thousands of people who have been laid off due to the economy? People who don't have a job don't have any money. They lose their homes, they starve, and they most certainly don't pay taxes to fix roads, pay the police, or fund the schools. Please explain how getting businesses to bring jobs back here so these people aren't homeless and starving doesn't make sense.

I did not in any way, shape, or form push for making the US a 2nd or 3rd world country, and I don't have the foggiest idea where you got that from. I even went back and re-read my own post trying to figure out where on earth you could have possibly got the idea that I was pushing for that and I still don't have a clue. I must say though, I like how your response to my last post was to try and twist what I have said. Perhaps you would like to re-read what I posted and respond to what is actually there?

Originally posted by mental modulator
What I am trying to say is this amassed wealth is funneled to other entities
( CORPORATIONS ) and in turn these entities lobby our politicians and often use our political system for the benefit of that amassed wealth, in order to amass more wealth, which is funneled back into the system to further benefit that mass of money and a few individuals .

Which is something that should not be permitted to happen. If you check out the links I provided about pork spending in my post on the bottom of page 6 there are several things in there that are no doubt the result of a corporation using their wealth to sway a politician into getting funding for one project or another. If we get government spending controlled better, there shouldn't be much, if any, of that going on.

America and "LIBERTY" is at the will of this machine - IF you think the government is going to change without changing this influence,,,well....

The only way I see anything changing as far as government is concerned is if we get the career politicians out of there and replace them with people who might actually care about the country more than themselves. Re-electing the same guys for 20 or 30 years doesn't equate to change regardless of who is president.

Originally posted by Jenna
I am by no means a tax expert, but for starters our taxes could be spent in much better ways than $1.8 million in swine odor and manure management research or $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach water taxi service project.

Or spending your taxes on imperialist wars? Fringers certainly had no issues or protests in mind when Bushieboy spent taxes on that. Current administration needs to spend where the consumer population lacks inorder to keep the economy up.

If the government was not spending and investing in the nation, the economy will collapse. Ofcourse thats what most fringers want, for him to "do nothing", but then we will have you protesting him for doing nothing. So its really pointless coming to a consensus with you fellas... especially if your hatred of him reaches into the conspiracy realm.

Agreed. However, telling Bob he can't have more than a certain amount of money isn't going to entice Bob to keep his money in the country.

Nobody is telling Bob what he can and cannot earn. Bobs marginal tax rate under Obama will still be less than that during the Reagan era, 10% less that the reagan era. Bobs tax rate will be increased by 4% as opposed to 98% of the population as opposed to the trickle down tax system where Bob gets the most and 99% of the population gets less.... yet thats not socialism (fair) so theres no issue.

Your going on about what Obama is "telling people" about what they cant have. I could apply the same concept of yours by saying working class Bob cant get as much of a tax cut in comparison to his wealthier neighbour. We can talk about whos telling who here or we can just stick to discussing the taxing system and how each administration whether it be conservative or liberal has changed it. By your logic its not socialism if the rich benefit more from tax cuts as opposed to the working class, but the otherway around it somehow is.... isnt both ways allocating wealth in anycase? Isnt that inevitable? Any change in the system of commerce or taxing will be changing and allocating wealth. Its bound to happen.

The rich pay more in taxes than the rest of us.

The rich all together (top 1%) pay nearly 50% of the nations total tax earning, however the rich individuals themselves pay either the same as us working class individuals or less under Bush. Your refering to the inevitability of the fact the proportions of tax on their wealth will seem alot, but in comparison they pay the same tax rate, are treated just like everybody else, well treated better under the trickle down tax system. 4% increase under Obama is the result of a change in system, it benefits mostly for the backbone of this country (the largest consumer base) and the rich barely lose out on anything.

As I said before, those who have more money than they know what to do with should be helping others because they want to

Thats true, yet we are not talking about whos tell who here, we are talking about the tax system. Either increasing taxes for the top 1% by 4% or the trickle down system where the rich get the lion share. Either way its a system of taxes we are talking about. Either way we are still allocating wealth and money.

Ever tried supporting three people on $1908 a month? Just one dollar over the limit, but you wouldn't be eligible for assistance. It would be impossible to pay your rent/mortgage, car payment, utilities, and then buy gas and groceries for three people for $1908 a month. But according to the government you can and don't need any help from them.

Thats little under 23 grand a year to which you will benefit more than the majority of earners under the Obama plan. Now I dont know where your going with this but I thought government assistance was "socialism"?

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Jenna


Nice post Jenna! I think you speak for a majority of ATS members. I'm not affiliated with any party. I'm an American with freedom and the constitution at heart. I haven't liked the path America has been forced to tread for a long time. I know we can do better. Much better. It's got to start somewhere and it sounds like tomorrow's a good place.

Thank you!

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Another fantastic post!

I wish I could have given more stars because you speak on behalf of true ATS members. Those that hold true to party lines are here not so much to learn, but to divide. They are part of the problem, not the solution. We need to set aside our slight differences and come together under truth and freedom. If we do not do this now, both will perish.

This is the purpose of "divide and conquer" tactics. The wise person understands. This world can never be a utopia in the true sense of the word because that would mean everybody gets what they want.. It is not in its nature to be this way. True nature is love and respect, truth and freedom, grace and understanding. We must learn to allow and to live each of our lives as we see fit. Until this happens, we will always be at the mercy of oppressive governments.

We need to unite to ward off slavery. There is power in numbers.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by TheDarkNight]

Originally posted by TheDarkNight
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Another fantastic post!

I wish I could have given many starts. You speak on behalf of the true ATS members. Those that hold true to party lines are here not so much to learn but to divide. They are part of the problem, not the solution. We need to set aside our slight differences and come together under truth and freedom. If we do not do this now, both will perish.

This is the purpose of "divide and conquer" tactics. The wise person understands.

But being "partisan" is basic human sociology right and left is just a simple way to describe this phnom...

Lets just say we cleansed DC of every politician and replaced them ALL. Do you think this dysfunction would stop???

The problem is in a way exaggerated because nobody is bothering to see if their beliefs even work or serve to create a better AMERICA.

These beliefs are key, discussion, communication and INWARD reflection is needed as much as a publicized act of protest.

I will ask you

HOW do you KNOW your beliefs help expand liberty and create a better AMERICA?

what is your proof

reply to post by TheDarkNight


Awesome post Dark Night. Can I paraphrase you tomorrow when I have the mic at the tea party? You read my mind.

I want everyone that walks away from my tea party to feel like they learned something new or to maybe see something from a slightly different view than maybe they've ever thought about something. I really want the republicans to see their own constitution trampling and see that it's as bad or even worse than the dems and their socialist agenda. And I want both parties to see that the combination of a police state with socialism is an absolute disaster.

They all need to unzip their party costumes and step out of them so that they can see them from the outside in, instead of from the inside out. Only when they step out and look from a new vantage point, will they be able to see their own party's evils.

They all need to unzip their party costumes and step out of them so that they can see them from the outside in, instead of from the inside out

You might as well hope for wold peace while your at it. Have you met many die hard republicans or democrats that seem capable of listening to reason and seeing that there is such a thing as middle ground? Yes there are a few out there but the vast majority are so blinded by their party lines that they will never be able to give you what you are looking for.

Originally posted by Ron Paul Girl
reply to post by TheDarkNight

 

Awesome post Dark Night. Can I paraphrase you tomorrow when I have the mic at the tea party? You read my mind.

I want everyone that walks away from my tea party to feel like they learned something new or to maybe see something from a slightly different view than maybe they've ever thought about something. I really want the republicans to see their own constitution trampling and see that it's as bad or even worse than the dems and their socialist agenda. And I want both parties to see that the combination of a police state with socialism is an absolute disaster.

They all need to unzip their party costumes and step out of them so that they can see them from the outside in, instead of from the inside out. Only when they step out and look from a new vantage point, will they be able to see their own party's evils.

First off Socialist Police state???

Last I knew I haven't talked to a cop in several years AND I haven't received a dang thing from the government...

You sound like you are reading off a script belonging to a FOX anchor and last time I check they were running commercials by - BOFA - WF - CARGILL - BP....

Do you think this movement has not already been coopted by the GOP for their go in 2012?

"This tea bagging is being brought to you by several recipients of the "socialist" gov bailout."

The GOP will ride your wind and shut the door in your face - believe it!

Originally posted by KARLH

They all need to unzip their party costumes and step out of them so that they can see them from the outside in, instead of from the inside out

You might as well hope for wold peace while your at it. Have you met many die hard republicans or democrats that seem capable of listening to reason and seeing that there is such a thing as middle ground? Yes there are a few out there but the vast majority are so blinded by their party lines that they will never be able to give you what you are looking for.

The thing is Karl - after all is said in done there are still the simple sociological differences in viewpoints - This two party system is a reflection of the duality of mankind and I believe it is a natural occurrence.

People vote for the choice closest to the ideas that do not offend their own sensibilities.

I already differ with many of the tea bag folks because they seem to be utterly blind to
the DANGERS of PRIVATE dominance. In fact if they had it their way many would further pursue economic policies that in my eyes would only further seal Americas casket.

then to boot they will call me a fooking socialist...

I want some of the same things - but some of the ideas being tossed about seem ludicrous to me.

So much for a grass root uprising... more and more is coming out about the corporate shrills and right wing millionaires backing this thing.

It will be interesting to see how few actually show up... I could be wrong but I am thinking its really going to flub.

reply to post by mental modulator

The thing is Karl - after all is said in done there are still the simple sociological differences in viewpoints - This two party system is a reflection of the duality of mankind and I believe it is a natural occurrence.

I understand what you are saying and I agree that it is a natural occurrence. Voting for the party that is more in line with your own viewpoints makes sense. There are a few problems though.

Many people don't do that any longer. We no longer vote for the party that most reflects our viewpoints. Some people are now forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Others only vote to keep their party in power, regardless of what their party does, did, will do. So long as the opposition is kept out of office, they are happy.

People don't seem to think for themselves any longer. They can't step back and see the eternal truth that politicians lie. The people who run the country are not in power to protect "We the people". They are there to protect the bottom line of the corporations that have paid to get them in power. I don't care if it is a republican or a democrat. You have been saying it well in this thread but some people refuse to see it for what it is.

As long as people continue to ignore the obvious, things will never change. Money is power. Money put these idiots in control. Money will keep them in control. Money will keep up the illusion that one side is going to make things better as long as we elect them. Money will repeat the cycle for the opposition when it is their turn.

I am rambling.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Or spending your taxes on imperialist wars? Fringers certainly had no issues or protests in mind when Bushieboy spent taxes on that. Current administration needs to spend where the consumer population lacks inorder to keep the economy up.

Except the part where we aren't expanding our territory, so the wars aren't imperialistic. I think if Congress put a complete stop to adding pork to every bill they pass, we would have plenty of money to spend on things the country needs. You seem to be forgetting that many Democrats in Congress had no problem spending money on the wars either while Bush was in office, including Obama up until he apparently decided it might hurt him during the elections.

If the government was not spending and investing in the nation, the economy will collapse. Ofcourse thats what most fringers want, for him to "do nothing", but then we will have you protesting him for doing nothing. So its really pointless coming to a consensus with you fellas... especially if your hatred of him reaches into the conspiracy realm.

Yes. Everyone who isn't 100% in agreement with you wants the economy to collapse and the country to fall. That makes perfect sense.

Nobody is telling Bob what he can and cannot earn. Bobs marginal tax rate under Obama will still be less than that during the Reagan era, 10% less that the reagan era. Bobs tax rate will be increased by 4% as opposed to 98% of the population as opposed to the trickle down tax system where Bob gets the most and 99% of the population gets less.... yet thats not socialism (fair) so theres no issue.

A few problems here. First, had you read the posts I was responding to yes they were talking about limiting how much Bob can earn. Taking money from Bob because he has too much and giving it to Bill because he doesn't have as much as Bob is socialism. Personally, I want my doctor to make as much as he is worth, not as much as someone arbitrarily decides is enough. I don't want someone who is ticked off over having a cap placed on their earnings to be the one cutting me open. Second, which definition of socialism are you using? There are several.

Your going on about what Obama is "telling people" about what they cant have. I could apply the same concept of yours by saying working class Bob cant get as much of a tax cut in comparison to his wealthier neighbour. We can talk about whos telling who here or we can just stick to discussing the taxing system and how each administration whether it be conservative or liberal has changed it. By your logic its not socialism if the rich benefit more from tax cuts as opposed to the working class, but the otherway around it somehow is.... isnt both ways allocating wealth in anycase? Isnt that inevitable? Any change in the system of commerce or taxing will be changing and allocating wealth. Its bound to happen.

Again, a few problems. I wasn't "going on about what Obama is 'telling people' about what they can't have". Had you read the posts I was responding to, I was responding to other posters beliefs that Bob shouldn't have all the money he earns and didn't say anything about Obama trying to tell people what they can have. Please try to keep things in context. It's much more effective.

The tax cut percentage might be the same, but no Bill wouldn't get to keep as much money as Bob if they didn't make the same amount each year. And no, that isn't socialism. Bill earned his own money and gets to keep whatever's left after taxes are paid. Bob earned his own money and gets to keep whatever's left after taxes are paid. Their total amounts left over after taxes aren't going to be equal, but the percentages will be. How is that socialism?

The rich all together (top 1%) pay nearly 50% of the nations total tax earning, however the rich individuals themselves pay either the same as us working class individuals or less under Bush. Your refering to the inevitability of the fact the proportions of tax on their wealth will seem alot, but in comparison they pay the same tax rate, are treated just like everybody else, well treated better under the trickle down tax system. 4% increase under Obama is the result of a change in system, it benefits mostly for the backbone of this country (the largest consumer base) and the rich barely lose out on anything.

Ok, example time. Let's say Bill makes $30,000 a year. Bill owes $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100 each year. So Bill pays $5527 each year. Bob on the other hand makes $300,000 a year. Bob owes $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000 each year. So Bob pays $99572 a year. LINK (Scroll to part C for single rates)

Now lets say that the $3315 and $79772 stay the same when taxes go up by 4%, just to keep things simple. (They would go up as well, but for the sake of simplicity we'll leave them alone.) So now Bill owes $3,315 plus 32% of the excess over $22,100 each year. Bill now pays $5843 in taxes. Bob on the other hand owes $79.772 plus 43.6% of the excess over $250,000 each year. So now Bob pays $101,572 in taxes. Bob is losing a third of his income while Bill is losing roughly a sixth.

Now what were you saying about proportions and how the rich pay the same as the rest of us?

Thats true, yet we are not talking about whos tell who here, we are talking about the tax system.

Sigh. Context, Southern Guardian, context. Go back and read what I responded to. Yes I did indeed respond to the idea that people should have to help others based purely on them being rich while someone else is not.

Thats little under 23 grand a year to which you will benefit more than the majority of earners under the Obama plan. Now I dont know where your going with this but I thought government assistance was "socialism"?

I provided a link to information that shows that you do not benefit by making just above the poverty limit. I would much rather make a dollar less and be given a little help until I could get a better paying job, then be one dollar over the limit, be in just as bad a shape as the guy next to me, but be turned away with my starving kid just because I make an extra dollar than they want me to make. It may be just under $23k a year, but so are a lot of amounts and many of them mean you don't qualify for help of any kind even if you and your family are literally starving to death. And again, context is important.

Using taxpayer money to assist people in getting back on their feet when they need a little help isn't socialism, to me anyway. Taking money away from Bob to give to me just because someone has decided he doesn't really need all of it is indeed socialism.

Originally posted by Jenna

We were talking about the US, not the entire planet. The US is by no means closed or finite, and while our resources may be finite on this planet, it is not a closed system either. The earth is affected by it's environment (space) and things that happen in that environment (passing meteors, the phases of the moon, solar flares, etc.), therefore it is not a closed system.

Jenna the Earth is a closed and finite system plain and simple. There is a LIMITED amount of resources that we may extract, no meteor, sun flare, moon phase or any other astral phenomenon is going to change that, ever.

These limited resources are the BASIS or FOUNDATION of the economy of the entire world, not just the USA but every single nation and group on the planet is constrained by the LIMIT on resources available.

To say the resources on the Earth are finite but the resources in the USA are not makes absolutely NO sense what so ever.

So giving businesses a reason to stay here and employ people here doesn't make any sense? Have you not heard of the thousands of people who have been laid off due to the economy? People who don't have a job don't have any money. They lose their homes, they starve, and they most certainly don't pay taxes to fix roads, pay the police, or fund the schools. Please explain how getting businesses to bring jobs back here so these people aren't homeless and starving doesn't make sense.

To begin how about: an end to our participation in the global free trade market. the reinstatement of tariffs and taxes on all goods imported into the usa for sale, the taxing of corporations profits even if they do not exist here int he usa and the like.

I did not in any way, shape, or form push for making the US a 2nd or 3rd world country, and I don't have the foggiest idea where you got that from. I even went back and re-read my own post trying to figure out where on earth you could have possibly got the idea that I was pushing for that and I still don't have a clue.

You really want to fix the huge gap between the richest and the poorest? Don't impose limits on Bob, he'll just take his money elsewhere so you can't take it from him. Give him an incentive to keep the jobs here instead of outsourcing them.

first off,

Each year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses.1 Offshore tax havens today hold trillions of dollars in assets provided by citizens of other countries, including the United States.2 The extent to which those assets represent funds hidden from tax authorities by taxpayers from the United States and other countries outside of the tax havens is of critical importance.3

Link to US Senate Report

So even at current rates bob is finding ways to avoid paying his taxes, an example of how little he cares about the system an the people of the USA. So if he is so quick to cheat what makes you think he is going to be a charitable giver in the end?


How are we going to convince bob to keep jobs here Jenna?

What is the rational for bob moving jobs to china in the first place?

Then taking that rational and applying it in a way that make the USA's work force attractive in the same way what do we get?

Well it is my understanding that the main motivation for a businesses to do everything it does is to increase its profitability. A business sends its it production over seas for this reason as well: cheap labor = more profits.

The labor is cheaper, the restrictions on waste and pollution are more lax, human rights laws are more lax. Everything works together to make the business capable of exploiting second and third world environments and laborers in the name of profitability.

There are a host of issues that make the second and third worlds more interesting to a business for production.

Simply allowing bob to keep billions in the bank with little or no taxation is never going to make him decide to take the cut in profits to manufacture here, it just will not happen.

so, to answer your question, if you want to make the USA as interesting a place for businesses to manufacture in your going to have to go WAY beyond letting bob make as much tax free $$ as he can.

Your going to have to make your kids work for $00.50 an hour, 16 hours a day, seven days a week in horrible conditions and at the same time lessen environmental protections allowing your community to be polluted and toxified by bob's business so that he is willing to manufacture there.

So I hope you don't mind your family members having to work in these horrid conditions and you like living in horrid conditions and you like your men with 8 fingers instead of 10 and your children with one eye and one arm, if you catch my drift.

That is what i mean by making the USA a second or third world nation. You talk as if letting bob be as rich as he likes, or can manage, tax free is going to allow the USA to once again have jobs, but it simply will not, the logic is flawed.

Punish him if he hires someone who is here illegally just cause he wants to save a few bucks.

and he will continue to produce in china. . .

I must say though, I like how your response to my last post was to try and twist what I have said.

Perhaps you would like to re-read what I posted and respond to what is actually there?

I am not trying to 'twist it' Jenna i am simply trying to point out the failed logic.



[edit on 15-4-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Karlhungis


I think I am always Ramblin...

What I was trying to say is that I think a third party will have a VERY hard time substantiating it self because of this simple societal splits over some very basic tenets.
Unfortunately both parties attempt to cover all the bases one way or the other...
You are very right on the lesser of two evils - I understand and see that time and time again here.

You see I am ANTI GOP - thats my consistent "party" - sort of puts me in the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" category.

Anyhow GOP will ace out all the RP nuance in regards to this TEA BAGGING...
GOP will just use the work/concerns of others, obscure the concepts genesis and attempt to score GOP POINTS

JEB 2012

This tea bagging being brought to you by Cialis and UBS!

"Fight the PTB!!!!!!!!!!!"

SO ya, there are problems...


Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Wed Apr 15 2009 by Jbird]

Originally posted by Animal
Jenna the Earth is a closed and finite system plain and simple. There is a LIMITED amount of resources that we may extract, no meteor, sun flare, moon phase or any other astral phenomenon is going to change that, ever.

You seem to be confusing yourself. A closed system is one that is isolated from and not affected by it's environment. Earth's environment is space. What happens in space affects Earth. Therefore, it is not a closed system and in reality there is no such thing as a closed system. LINK LINK LINK The resources we have available, many of which are not finite by the way, has nothing to do with whether Earth is affected by it's environment (space).

To say the resources on the Earth are finite but the resources in the USA are not makes absolutely NO sense what so ever.

Sigh. Try reading what I wrote again. I was not talking about resources that come from the ground now was I? I specifically said population, also known as taxpayers. The basis of our economy is not something that comes from the ground, it is the consumer. With our population increasing, our consumer base is expanding. People are not a finite resource.

And next time you decide to jump from talking about the US, our economy, and our taxes to talking about the planet's resources you might want to make it clear that you are attempting to do so since the resources available on the planet, while an important topic as well, are irrelevant to the current discussion. I would have had to make one heck of a leap of logic to realize that you changed topics from our economy to the earth's resources mid-post without any kind of clue that you had done so.

an end to our participation in the global free trade market. the reinstatement of tariffs and taxes on all goods imported into the usa for sale, the taxing of corporations profits even if they do not exist here int he usa and the like.

I have no clue what point you are trying to make here. The question was how does getting businesses to bring jobs back here so these people aren't homeless and starving not make sense?

How are we going to convince bob to keep jobs here Jenna? What is the rational for bob moving jobs to china in the first place? and then taking that rational and applying it in a way that make the usa's work force attractive in the same way what do we get?

Ok, so since I used the word incentive you somehow equate that with letting Bob run amok and treat workers like animals turning the US into a 3rd world country? You do realize that Bob not wanting to pay a tariff/tax to import his product from China is an incentive for Bob to have his product manufactured here right? Bob's a smart guy. He knows that if he has to pay that tariff, his profit margin will go down a bit. If it goes down enough, Bob will start manufacturing his products here again rather than importing them because he won't have to pay that tariff and it would be cheaper on him to do so.

i am not trying to twist it' jenna i am simply trying to point out the failed logic.

As long as you ignore the fact that you have to assume my use of the word incentive means that I advocate what amounts to slave labor. As long as you assume that is the only thing that an incentive could possibly be, then sure. Unfortunately, many different things can be an incentive including a desire to avoid something so my logic isn't half as flawed as you would like to believe.

Edit: adding links

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Jenna]

reply to post by Jenna


Jenna I feel like you are being intentionally argumentative...

From the sources you provided:

Systems are rarely ever either open or closed but open to some and closed to other influences.

open system

Oh so true, to argue this point is to choose to avoid the lager argument by burying ones head in the details which are relatively meaningless.

In physics, a closed system can exchange heat and work (aka energy), but not matter, with its surroundings.

Closed System

Again so true. We live on a planet with LIMITED amounts of PHYSICAL resources. Yes there are without a doubt renewable resources, but they are only renewable to a POINT. Trees for example are renewable, UNLESS you harvest them at a rate which causes them to diminish and disappear.

So do you see how me saying we live in a FINITE CLOSED system makes sense?

We have a limited amount of HARVESTABLE resources which which to produce goods and make money.

We live on a planet that is not receiving materials from outer space (largely closed but of course still interacting with outer space)


This boils down to the very straight forward concept of Carrying Capacity, which

is the population size of the species that the environment can sustain in the long term, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment. For the human population, more complex variables such as sanitation and medical care are sometimes considered as part of the necessary infrastructure.

Then you try to switch up the argument by saying:

The basis of our economy is not something that comes from the ground, it is the consumer. With our population increasing, our consumer base is expanding. People are not a finite resource.

Jenna what is a consumer without goods (FINITE RESOURCES) to buy?

The basis of the economy most defiantly, undeniably, and OBVIOUSLY 'comes from the ground'. If you do not have something to sell you don't have anything to but. Nothing to buy means no consumers and no profits. You are skirting the reality of the situation in a most asinine way.

And next time you decide to jump from talking about the US, our economy, and our taxes to talking about the planet's resources you might want to make it clear that you are attempting to do so since the resources available on the planet, while an important topic as well, are irrelevant to the current discussion. I would have had to make one heck of a leap of logic to realize that you changed topics from our economy to the earth's resources mid-post without any kind of clue that you had done so.

Jenna I made it clear that what I was talking about.

Perhaps you could explain in detail how the resources of the planet are not part of economy? I would love to see you so this.

Jenna then you quote me saying that to improve the economic and employment situation in the USA we could:

an end to our participation in the global free trade market. the reinstatement of tariffs and taxes on all goods imported into the usa for sale, the taxing of corporations profits even if they do not exist here int he usa and the like.

The above are my works you quoted. To which you reply:

I have no clue what point you are trying to make here. The question was how does getting businesses to bring jobs back here so these people aren't homeless and starving not make sense?

A bit frustrating...Your question: 'The question was how does getting businesses to bring jobs back here so these people aren't homeless and starving not make sense? ' made perfect sense and I answered it. Maybe the fact that I dident say NO TAXES for the RICH confused you but I assure you my point was on how to improve the economic situation here.

Then you say to me:

Ok, so since I used the word incentive you somehow equate that with letting Bob run amok and treat workers like animals turning the US into a 3rd world country? You do realize that Bob not wanting to pay a tariff/tax to import his product from China is an incentive for Bob to have his product manufactured here right? Bob's a smart guy. He knows that if he has to pay that tariff, his profit margin will go down a bit. If it goes down enough, Bob will start manufacturing his products here again rather than importing them because he won't have to pay that tariff and it would be cheaper on him to do so.

THAT IS THE POINT I MADE TO YOU WHICH YOU SAY YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. Then you use it yourself? What is up Jenna, do you just want to argue?

Go ahead ignore my points, spin and spew all you like. I made clear points which you have systematically done everything in your power to ignore and spin. Enjoy the box.

Originally posted by Animal
So do you see how me saying we live in a FINITE CLOSED system makes sense?

I know you looked at the links, so for you to still say that the earth is a closed system after being given info that says a closed system is rare and there really aren't any truly closed systems makes no sense whatsoever. And again, none of this is relevant to the topic which is the tea parties currently going on around the country. If you really want to talk about closed and open systems, start a thread about it and I will gladly debate this with you further there.

Jenna I made it clear that what I was talking about.

You said:

In a closed and finite system there is only so much to go around, why should one person starve and another sit on a pile of gold that can not be spent in a life time?

How exactly did you expect me to realize you were switching from the economy to the planet when you are talking about people starving while others are sitting on a pile of money in a thread about the tea parties? Nothing about this thread would lead one to think that a discussion whether the planet is a closed or open system would be anywhere in it. You may think you made it clear, but I am telling you that you did not. It was not until your next post that you mentioned the Earth and I realized that you had switched topics.

A bit frustrating...Your question: 'The question was how does getting businesses to bring jobs back here so these people aren't homeless and starving not make sense? ' made perfect sense and I answered it. Maybe the fact that I dident say NO TAXES for the RICH confused you but I assure you my point was on how to improve the economic situation here.

You answered with a series of sentence fragments. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm really not. But I read that series of fragments 10 times and could not for the life of me figure out what you were trying to say. Had you said "These things would improve the economic situation" or included your recent edit to begin with, I would have understood perfectly. Though it still would not have answered how bringing businesses back doesn't make sense. More businesses in the US isn't going to stop us from trading with other countries or institute tariffs, and how exactly are we going to tax a company that isn't based here? We can put a tax on their product that the consumer pays, but the company itself isn't going to be paying that.

THAT IS THE POINT I MADE TO YOU WHICH YOU SAY YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. Then you use it yourself?

What is up Jenna, do you just want to argue?

Again, sentence fragments are not easily read when thrown in together with other sentence fragments. The section of my post you are trying to say I took from you was written in response to your accusations that I wanted to turn the US into a 3rd world country as you can clearly see since the first sentence of that paragraph included the phrase "turning the world into a 3rd world country". And no, I don't want to argue nor am I for that matter.

Go ahead ignore my points, spin and spew all you like. I made clear points which you have systematically done everything in your power to ignore and spin. Enjoy the box.

I have addressed each point you have made, completely spin and spew free. I have neither the desire nor the inclination to spin what you or anyone else posts, nor do I. Which points do you think I have ignored? I'll gladly revisit them.