It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked

page: 27
132
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

Regulating predatory business practices that cross the line is different than a government that goes beyond protecting the rights of people. NASA is not about protecting the rights of people. Subsidizing large portions of the economy is not protecting the rights of people. There're many other examples of this where the government has overstepped its bounds. It has become a maker of destiny rather than a empowerment tool that enables free men and women to make their own destiny. Government is so powerful it feels that it's superior to individuals.

In some ways, it's true that government is superior to individuals. It's supposed to be the combined wisdom of the public put into one place to protect our rights. In principle, government -is- superior. But what happens when the people no longer have freedom because the government tells them what to do and think? Don't we have wisdom BECAUSE of freedom?

What might be happening is government is just being too pushy and losing focus.

As for people in foreign countries surviving on meager wages and supplying us with cheap product: so what? If that displaces jobs here in america for low-skill workers then it's high-time they go back to school. Those workers in those other countries are WILLING to work for less because the conditions over there are different. Thus, the free market demands that we use this opportunity. This should be the point in time where low-skill workers get a clue, but instead they sit on their lazy chair and condemn the free market. Sucks to be a loser, doesn't it?

The US needs to:
1) Decrease taxes to encourage business to flourish here
2) Remove money from NASA and put into college grant funding to get low-income kids in college
3) Lower the minimum wage requirement (a state issue?)
4) Remove subsidies... all of em, including the ones we have in fossil fuels
5) Figure out why college tuition sky-rocketed in the past 40 years and LOWER it
6) Immediately make all illegals legal and start penalizing mexico for allowing illegals to cross
7) Gut pork-barrel spending - BAN our government from becoming a business owner

Thos're just a few ideas.
edit on 11-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked'



"Now, it’s a simple theory," said Obama. "And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.





Yup it has never worked, except for the first 150 years when it was actually applied, resulting in one of the most rapid growths of prosperity, well being, influence and power the world has ever seen. Don't worry Obama is here to change all of that.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by macman

No, no they were not perfect. And no, they did not believe in slavery.


The founding fathers did not believe in slavery?
So they put a stop to it immediately or did they let it continue and even perhaps own a few?


They believed in States Rights, thus the 3/5 clause.


The states right to own slaves.
I am not sure why you "states rights" people think saying "states rights" erradicates the fact that the main right we are talking about is the one to own slaves.


They knew if they went all the way to rights for all, it would lead to the Union breaking up.
If they went against rights, then it would lead to the Union breaking up.
Please go back and understand the term 3/5 "Compromise".

edit on 8-12-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)


Nothing you just wrote really has anything to do with the 3/5 compromise so I am not sure what you want me to look up and your claim that the founding fathers did not believe in slavery just makes me laugh.


Oh good hell.
The actual title of the clause in the "3/5 Compromise"
They knew slavery was evil, yet knew that if they banned it out right, the civil war would kick off quicker then what it did.
Please, go back and read some history. Maybe some of the correspondences between members and understand why they did it the way they did.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by macman

Endless resources of what?
So, you are in the camp that wealth is finite, people can't make it themselves.
You are right. Stupid people *Forehead slap*, they need the Govt to do it for them. And show them how to do it, provide them everything to do it and if the dummy fails, be there it kiss the boo-boo, make it better and do it for them again, all with others people's money.


Are you serious? Do you understand waht finite resources means because by this post it seems you do not. Yes, wealth is FINITE. This post is not even a response really, it is just kind of a derrogotory grunt. How do you not get that wealth is finite? Show me an economist that would not agree that wealth is finite or even attempt to explain why you think it is infinite.


No, wealth is not finite.
Only in the terms of the Govt limiting the amount of printed paper notes, then yes.
But, since the Govt is printing like there is no tomorrow, more natural resources are found every day, more gold deposits, rare earth materials and so on, NO, wealth is not finite.
My creation of wealth does not limit your creation of wealth.
You fail.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



more natural resources are found every day, more gold deposits, rare earth materials and so on


When I read this, I envisioned our planet's corpse, surrounded by giant broken scaffolding, burning at the core with rocks and debris orbiting the carcass.

I saw it. I really did. Wish I had the time and skills to illustrate it.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Yes it does. Your wealth is created within the bounds of the society - in fact it is impossible without it. If 70% of the entire wealth is yours, then that leaves only 30% for everyone else, including me. Your's is the silly "the pie is unlimited" argument.

Moreover, if your wealth is created by polluting the air, water and land that I use, then it does affect me. Also, the wealthiest people today have generally gained their wealth through the work of thousands of others who work for them. You don't do the work, but you steal from the workers who actually do; thats how the capitalist mode of production functions.

I'm sorry, but nobody creates wealth in isolation.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 



more natural resources are found every day, more gold deposits, rare earth materials and so on


When I read this, I envisioned our planet's corpse, surrounded by giant broken scaffolding, burning at the core with rocks and debris orbiting the carcass.

I saw it. I really did. Wish I had the time and skills to illustrate it.







They are here for a reason.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman
 


Yes it does. Your wealth is created within the bounds of the society - in fact it is impossible without it. If 70% of the entire wealth is yours, then that leaves only 30% for everyone else, including me. Your's is the silly "the pie is unlimited" argument.

Moreover, if your wealth is created by polluting the air, water and land that I use, then it does affect me. Also, the wealthiest people today have generally gained their wealth through the work of thousands of others who work for them. You don't do the work, but you steal from the workers who actually do; thats how the capitalist mode of production functions.

I'm sorry, but nobody creates wealth in isolation.


No, sorry that just doesn't fly.
If you operate under the idea that the Govt defines not only what wealth is, but how to measure it and control it, then yes.
Take away the fiat US promissory note, then no, my wealth does not stop your wealth.
The whole BS argument of "how you created your wealth" is a different subject.

Peeling the onion back more on your thoughts, you are of the Communist mindset.
Those that created wealth owe not only more, but owe it all to the people that work for them.
No.
This ridiculous idea that wealth is created on the backs of the lowly and sloven working man is merely smoke and mirrors to hide envy and jealousy.
I can become wealthy, working a job paying around $80k a year, by staying out of debt, saving, living within my means and still be able to provide daily for my family.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Why would you think I'm talking about someone who makes 80k a year? I wouldn't begrudge them of that. My argument was aimed at the multi-millionaires and billionaires, the new aristocracy, of today.

Of course there is massive exploitation going on, what is everyone protesting about then? CEO's are paid 400 times more than the average worker, do you really believe that they do that much more work?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Are you saying the planet's resources are meant to be plundered?




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman
 


Why would you think I'm talking about someone who makes 80k a year? I wouldn't begrudge them of that. My argument was aimed at the multi-millionaires and billionaires, the new aristocracy, of today.

Of course there is massive exploitation going on, what is everyone protesting about then? CEO's are paid 400 times more than the average worker, do you really believe that they do that much more work?


So you get to define what wealth is for someone else?
Now that is just about as elitists as it gets.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 


Are you saying the planet's resources are meant to be plundered?



Nice try, control the words, control the argument.

You fail.

The resources are here to be used.

edit on 12-12-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 



more natural resources are found every day, more gold deposits, rare earth materials and so on

When I read this, I envisioned our planet's corpse, surrounded by giant broken scaffolding, burning at the core with rocks and debris orbiting the carcass.

I saw it. I really did. Wish I had the time and skills to illustrate it.

They are here for a reason.


Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 


Are you saying the planet's resources are meant to be plundered?



Nice try, control the words, control the argument.

You fail.

The resources are here to be used.


Plundered, used - in context, what's the difference?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 


Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 



more natural resources are found every day, more gold deposits, rare earth materials and so on

When I read this, I envisioned our planet's corpse, surrounded by giant broken scaffolding, burning at the core with rocks and debris orbiting the carcass.

I saw it. I really did. Wish I had the time and skills to illustrate it.

They are here for a reason.


Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 


Are you saying the planet's resources are meant to be plundered?



Nice try, control the words, control the argument.

You fail.

The resources are here to be used.


Plundered, used - in context, what's the difference?




So what are they here for then?
To be looked at and never touched?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 




The resources are here to be used.


soficrow
Plundered, used - in context, what's the difference?



So what are they here for then?



Good question. I'll play.


* Oil and gas deposits - shock-absorbers, protecting against the effects of earthquakes, asteroids and the like.

* Water in aquifers - same, plus ???

* Conductive Metals - balance electro-magnetic forces.

* Precious metals - block conductivity

????????? That's all I can do fast off the top of my head. Fun tho.



edit on 12/12/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

So what are they here for then?
To be looked at and never touched?



Gotta comment here...while the function of precious metals in the earths crust is a scientific topic likely beyond me without some research...I am pretty sure they have one. Nature is funny that way. It doesn't create things for no reason.

I am also suspicious that we have harvested enough gold etc. to effect those purposes.

Lastly...they ARE NOT here because nature or God assumed that human beings would evolve and one day develop an un-natural obsession for shiny yellow rocks, like Golem with OCD. That doesn't seem logical either.

With a different roll of the dice, some other metal could have taken Gold's place in history. It only has value that we have assigned it. Nature didn't plan it that way. We are just freaky animals about those things. Crows gathering shiny objects for a nest, but we do it collectively and there are Billions of us.
edit on 12-12-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 




The resources are here to be used.


soficrow
Plundered, used - in context, what's the difference?



So what are they here for then?



Good question. I'll play.


* Oil and gas deposits - shock-absorbers, protecting against the effects of earthquakes, asteroids and the like.

* Water in aquifers - same, plus ???

* Conductive Metals - balance electro-magnetic forces.

* Precious metals - block conductivity

????????? That's all I can do fast off the top of my head. Fun tho.



edit on 12/12/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)


Those are nice theories and all, BUT.............theories non the less.

I do applaud your retort and the nice back and forth we have.
I do believe that the things here on this earth are for us to use, not look at and ponder.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

So what are they here for then?
To be looked at and never touched?





Lastly...they ARE NOT here because nature or God assumed that human beings would evolve and one day develop an un-natural obsession for shiny yellow rocks


And this can be proven how?
May I offer to tread lightly, as you don't know my religious stance or non-religious stance.
edit on 12-12-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



Those are nice theories and all, BUT.............theories non the less.


True, but if they're correct, or similar hypotheses are accurate - then we're in seriously deep doodoo, are we not?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by macman
 



Those are nice theories and all, BUT.............theories non the less.


True, but if they're correct, or similar hypotheses are accurate - then we're in seriously deep doodoo, are we not?



As much if the almighty is indeed the flying spaghetti monster.

Having a belief that the things here on earth are to be used, I don't think it matters.

If these things were placed here not to be used, why give humans the ability to use them?
Animals use the natural resources on Earth.




top topics



 
132
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join