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

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Increasing tariffs leads to isolationism and protectionism.
Not fruitful roads to travel.

And why did costs rise here for those companies that moved off shore?

Because of a multitude of somewhat strict regulations in every regard.

I support unions and their pursuit of representing labor concerns. They lobby for me and I appreciate that. They put pressure on corporations for higher wages, a healthier work enviroment, bonus and retirement perks, etc.

Corporations look out for their stockholders.

Government looks out for the nation.

God looks out for everyone.

Why is protectionism bad when it balances exports with imports and promotes domestic job creation? That fails every logic test unless you are a big time investor in wall street..and maybe if you are lucky access to insider information.

People are not dumb. We tend to lookout for ourselves first and that is the natural way!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Because of a multitude of somewhat strict regulations in every regard.

So, more regulation and more control will do what?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I support unions and their pursuit of representing labor concerns. They lobby for me and I appreciate that. They put pressure on corporations for higher wages, a healthier work enviroment, bonus and retirement perks, etc.

Unions are destroying the ISP sector.
Look at the price comparison between QWest/Century Link and say PAETEC or Intergra Telecom.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Corporations look out for their stockholders.

As they should.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Government looks out for the nation.

You would hope, but the Govt looks out for itself.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
God looks out for everyone.

God provides people the opportunity, more so then the want.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Why is protectionism bad when it balances exports with imports and promotes domestic job creation? That fails every logic test unless you are a big time investor in wall street..and maybe if you are lucky access to insider information.

Because then outside countries won' trade with us. We become......isolated.
If a company is punished by the Govt for moving off shore, then they either close up shop for good, or move and don't deal with the US. Or do it with several middle men.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
People are not dumb. We tend to lookout for ourselves first and that is the natural way!

And that is the way it should be.
I, after all work and slave a job to provide for myself, not everyone else.

Originally posted by macman

Unions are destroying the ISP sector. Look at the price comparison between QWest/Century Link and say PAETEC or Intergra Telecom.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Corporations look out for their stockholders.

As they should

You have every right to be ardently pro-business, just like others have every right to be pro-unions. Capitalism is NOT the only way, there are other ways which are probably better, such as market socialism or any socialism for that matter.

When everyone becomes fixated on profit, they can't see the forest from the trees. You become greedy, which is not necessarily bad, till it becomes uncontrollable and leads to the decay of society..

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Government looks out for the nation.

You would hope, but the Govt looks out for itself.

That is called corruption brought upon by first amendment donations. When donations get abolished, an appropriate poll tax applied to everyone(including corporations) and the campaign process becomes shortened then I guarantee you the policies will change.

Because then outside countries won' trade with us. We become......isolated.
If a company is punished by the Govt for moving off shore, then they either close up shop for good, or move and don't deal with the US. Or do it with several middle men.

Isolation can be brought upon for many reasons, of which one of them is by high tariffs. I am not for high tariffs but you like to exaggerate everything to make your points. Low tariffs are equally bad because they encourage globalisation and off-shoring. There needs to be A BALANCE!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
People are not dumb. We tend to lookout for ourselves first and that is the natural way!

And that is the way it should be.
I, after all work and slave a job to provide for myself, not everyone else.

You have a right to be selfish as long as our corrupt government allows it. I would understand your frustration if you accussed the government of waste and cheating, but that is not what you stated. I go with what is posted.

And to be frank our government barely deserves any money at all!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

You have every right to be ardently pro-business, just like others have every right to be pro-unions. Capitalism is NOT the only way, there are other ways which are probably better, such as market socialism or any socialism for that matter.

Damn you for appealing to my free choice ideals.
You know I must now destroy you?
I say if you like Unions, go ahead.
But, forcing it via Govt I don't agree with.
The idea that a Company must accept it I don't like either.
At the end of the day, Unions are crushing ATT and Century Link.
GM had to restructure just so they could cover Union Costs.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
When everyone becomes fixated on profit, they can't see the forest from the trees. You become greedy, which is not necessarily bad, till it becomes uncontrollable and leads to the decay of society..

Greed is a personally defined term that can't really be applied to others, since you can only control yourself.
Whats greed to you, it statuesque to others.
One man's ceiling, another man's floor.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


That is called corruption brought upon by first amendment donations. When donations get abolished, an appropriate poll tax applied to everyone(including corporations) and the campaign process becomes shortened then I guarantee you the policies will change.

Yep, sure does.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Isolation can be brought upon for many reasons, of which one of them is by high tariffs. I am not for high tariffs but you like to exaggerate everything to make your points. Low tariffs are equally bad because they encourage globalisation and off-shoring. There needs to be A BALANCE!

Yes it can, and there should be a balance.
But, the Govt can't do, as they haven't, due to corruption.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

You have a right to be selfish as long as our corrupt government allows it. I would understand your frustration if you accussed the government of waste and cheating, but that is not what you stated. I go with what is posted.

The Govt is guilty of fraud, waste and abuse.
How is taking care of yourself, and wanting others to do the same selfish?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

And to be frank our government barely deserves any money at all!

That is an under statement.

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by dadgad

 

Sometimes, yes, but usually these people who accumulate such immense wealth do so through exploiting their workers or society in general.
The point I was trying to make was that much of their wealth has not been 'earned' by them.
Capitalism is profoundly unjust as seen by the wealth inequality today.

This quote summarizes an aspect of my point:

If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. - George Monbiot

edit on 13-12-2011 by lrak2 because: addendum

Certainly it is unjust, I wholly agree on that. The thing that bothers me is that we (left) don't seem to have any realistic alternative. This is a strange time we live in.

I know what you mean; there is so much disagreement within the left itself.
There is a little hope in that new economic systems don't simply pop up suddenly fully formed and functioning, capitalism certainly did not.
If current global trends continue, people may start searching for better alternatives. Or maybe we are already out of time...

reply to post by macman


You really believe that socio-economic factors don't play a role in limiting or expanding the opportunity available to someone?
Let's try a thought experiment.
There are two people; one was born to a family who lives in absolute poverty (their income is just able to cover basic needs of food & shelter).
The other person is born to an extremely wealthy family worth billions, and whose parents control the largest corporations in the world and went to elite universities.

Where is the equal opportunity here?

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman

 

You really believe that socio-economic factors don't play a role in limiting or expanding the opportunity available to someone?
Let's try a thought experiment.
There are two people; one was born to a family who lives in absolute poverty (their income is just able to cover basic needs of food & shelter).
The other person is born to an extremely wealthy family worth billions, and whose parents control the largest corporations in the world and went to elite universities.

Where is the equal opportunity here?

I did not know that I was to play God?
Or, that the Govt gets to either.
Will the person born into wealth have a better means to achieve goals? Sure, I guess. Money doesn't equal success though.
You speak with contempt for those born into wealth.
Talk about tolerance, geesh.

Just because a person was born into poverty doesn't then set them on the permanent path of poverty.
Or, is it you think a poor person is too dumb to make it on their own?

reply to post by macman



You make plenty of assumptions here.
My contempt is aimed at an economic system that allowed a few people to accumulate so much wealth.
You would not tolerate it if I took away your freedoms, would you? So why should I tolerate it when gain such wealth through exploiting the rest of society and the environment, thereby taking away my freedoms either directly or indirectly?

If a person is born into absolute poverty, it will be very rare for him/her to climb out. This is where you and I differ, it's not about playing God, but reconstituting society to help others. My freedom is deeply connected to others in the society. There are Religious Socialists who understand this.

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman

 

You make plenty of assumptions here.

By all means, please, correct my assumptions then.

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman

 

My contempt is aimed at an economic system that allowed a few people to accumulate so much wealth.
You would not tolerate it if I took away your freedoms, would you? So why should I tolerate it when gain such wealth through exploiting the rest of society and the environment, thereby taking away my freedoms either directly or indirectly?

The system is designed just to provide a means to acquire wealth.
If you don't like someone having more money, either out earn them or ignore them because they really don't matter to you direct.
I think that if more people worried more about themselves, we would be doing better.
I care not what car my neighbor drives.

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman

 

If a person is born into absolute poverty, it will be very rare for him/her to climb out. This is where you and I differ, it's not about playing God, but reconstituting society to help others. My freedom is deeply connected to others in the society. There are Religious Socialists who understand this.

Trying to change society to affect that is playing God.
Not being a Religious Socialists, I don't believe in this nor understand why it would be revered.

The idea that people can't achieve greatness, no matter where they came from is the difference between us.
I believe in people. I now they can do what they set their sights on.

reply to post by macman


That is where we differ.
For me, what is important is having freedom plus the actual capacity to utilize it, for everyone not just myself. Their freedom is also my freedom.
You give supreme importance to the individual; I recognize both the individual as well as the greater society which forms the individual.
Having freedom but not being able to exercise it is not of much use to anyone.

reply to post by macman


(Mods and Admins, This post here is on topic as the topic matter of the thread is so vast that it does not cover any one particular item but covers them all, Thanks, D1!)

What about The Federal Reserve then? Do you want them to continue unchequed without no one allowed to know what they do? If you are for privatization why not privatize the Dept of Defense while we are at it and why stop there, let's allow for police departments to wear corporate logos instead of department logos.

Privatization is good but up until a certain point and that point is that no part or key element of The US Federal Govt Infrastructure and Overall Architecture should not ever be privatized. Can you at least agree that privatization of elements of Govt should not ever be considered!

The current structure of the free market system is fundamentally corrupted and may not have a chance of ever coming back.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

(Mods and Admins, This post here is on topic as the topic matter of the thread is so vast that it does not cover any one particular item but covers them all, Thanks, D1!)

What about The Federal Reserve then? Do you want them to continue unchequed without no one allowed to know what they do? If you are for privatization why not privatize the Dept of Defense while we are at it and why stop there, let's allow for police departments to wear corporate logos instead of department logos.

Privatization is good but up until a certain point and that point is that no part or key element of The US Federal Govt Infrastructure and Overall Architecture should not ever be privatized. Can you at least agree that privatization of elements of Govt should not ever be considered!

The current structure of the free market system is fundamentally corrupted and may not have a chance of ever coming back.

edit on 15-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Time for another spanking eh?
Ok then. No, the Federal Reserve needs to be disbanded and audited.
Privatization of the DOD? Where do you get this crap from?
The Govt needs to go back to the original construct and intent.

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman

 

That is where we differ.
For me, what is important is having freedom plus the actual capacity to utilize it, for everyone not just myself. Their freedom is also my freedom.
You give supreme importance to the individual; I recognize both the individual as well as the greater society which forms the individual.
Having freedom but not being able to exercise it is not of much use to anyone.

I am not a greater good kind of guy. All that does is breed excuses why some will be sacrificed for the benefit of others. No thanks.
Freedom is freedom is freedom.
What you do with it and to what capacity it is used is yours to decide.
Having freedom, but not able to exercise it is the defining statement for how the corrupt Govt rules.

reply to post by lrak2


Not intended as a low blow, but there are several statements you made in reference to me, which I addressed, but you did not correctly identify that you understood my retort.
Can you address those things?

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

(Mods and Admins, This post here is on topic as the topic matter of the thread is so vast that it does not cover any one particular item but covers them all, Thanks, D1!)

What about The Federal Reserve then? Do you want them to continue unchequed without no one allowed to know what they do? If you are for privatization why not privatize the Dept of Defense while we are at it and why stop there, let's allow for police departments to wear corporate logos instead of department logos.

Privatization is good but up until a certain point and that point is that no part or key element of The US Federal Govt Infrastructure and Overall Architecture should not ever be privatized. Can you at least agree that privatization of elements of Govt should not ever be considered!

The current structure of the free market system is fundamentally corrupted and may not have a chance of ever coming back.

edit on 15-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

The entire federal government IS PRIVATE! I thought lots of people already knew this

Entity Details
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING

File Number: 2193946 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 04/19/1989
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: NON-PROFIT OR RELIGIOUS
Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE

Now someone please TELL ME WHY AND HOW on god's green earth did "a sovereign nation" become a corporation registered in the state of delaware? And why are the IRS and FED also corporations???

Entity Details
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING

File Number: 0042817 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 09/03/1914
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name: FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION
Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: NON-PROFIT OR RELIGIOUS
Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE

Entity Details
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING

File Number: 0325720 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 07/12/1933
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name: INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE, INC.
Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: GENERAL
Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE

As far as I am concerned this is ultimate proof that in capitalism EVERYTHING is private.

Go to Delaware Department of State: Division of Corporations and type the correct names. It is pointless to provide individual links.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


What does the "THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING" lend to?

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

What does the "THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING" lend to?

To be honest I don't know. But what does this have to do with anything?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

What does the "THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING" lend to?

To be honest I don't know. But what does this have to do with anything?

I really don't know either.
Just thought that it stood out like a sore thumb, and the statement leads to believe that it is not valid, canceled or expired.

Entity Details
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING

File Number: 0642405 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 06/14/1966
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name: F. B. I., INC.
Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: GENERAL
Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE

Entity Details
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING

File Number: 2004409 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 03/09/1983
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity Name: CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC.
Entity Kind: CORPORATION Entity Type: GENERAL
Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE

FBI and CIA! Probably ALL governmental functions have been privitised since the United States of America is primarily and foremost privitised. So much for the outdated constitution. No wonder our politicians think little of it.

Where there is smoke there is usually fire..........

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

What does the "THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING" lend to?

To be honest I don't know. But what does this have to do with anything?

I really don't know either.
Just thought that it stood out like a sore thumb, and the statement leads to believe that it is not valid, canceled or expired.

I don't think it has expired. I do remember reading comments about this on other sites and everyone was split on what this means. Some people claimed it was done for expediency of the government to be able to do transactions with other businesses, but this also means our government has become a business of sorts or is a religion.

Only a lawyer could explain what the heck is going on but I doubt most would be honest about it.