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.
originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Totally agree with not taxing income.
Don't agree with forcing someone to pay taxes against their will.
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
Worker owned cooperatives could force convential corporations from outsourcing services/goods because they will produce higher quality goods and create jobs. They will force the outsourcing corporations to compete with higher quality domestic product.
Private healthcare can drive the prices down because of competition. Government issued healthcare would increase the prices because of guaranteed income from the tax player and little to no competition.
Why not have a private social security retirement fund operated by small businesses that is not apart of government and is subject to market competition
Welfare can be operated by competing small business with the aid of public charities without the need for government.Probably for a lot less with less abuse and more oversight
Actual socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production. Government enforces this and that is what I don't agree with.Capitalism is anyone with capital can own the means of production with Government protecting the right to own it.Government is not necessary to protect private property.Guns are.Private security is a good idea.
Private healthcare can offer better services for cheaper and higher quality.
I agree to disagree. I don't believe in government robbing people for social programs. Why not have people donate to a social services fund? Why not have a optional social services tax on people's water/rent/waste disposal bill to the local municipality?
originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Aazadan
I disagree.
If done on a large enough scale it can definitely work.
Also, the US was founded on fiat currency.
originally posted by: intrptr
Hog wash… Only congress shall have the power to coin money…. read that coin. One ounce denominations of gold, sliver nickel and copper.
Money as in intrinsic tangible precious metal. These coins today are near priceless. Paper is well, worthless paper.
Fouding Fathers and Money
It is important to note that there are two different kinds of paper currency which are not "money" but circulate as such: the first is debt money, which can be redeemed in silver or gold on demand, and the other is fiat (paper) money, which is designated as legal tender but cannot be redeemed for anything. Currently, our "Currency" is fiat money, something so abhorrent to our Founding Father's that they didn't even discuss it as an option.
The Founders did allow, however, private banks to act as depositories for the United States and to collect taxes. People were issued redeemable bank notes which circulated as currency. Unfortunately, Alexander Hamilton realized his error in promoting this type of banking too late, and by the end of the Civil War there were thousands of banks issuing thousands of different kinds of bank notes.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aazadan
That bit you quoted from the link is exactly why paper currency was considered ridiculous to the founding Fathers. You must be a banker, or just a minion of their paradigm.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan
RE: student loans....at some point We The People have to ask the question: is the college graduate the only one benefitting from the degree earned?
The whole notion of student loans bothers me. Mostly because learning institutions have become for profit centers constantly chasing the next loan/bond election with ever increasing tuitions and fees. And instead of doing something to address the massive drain (1.2 trillion, as you mention), they just shovel more money at it. By, in essence, agreeing to give people enough rope to hang themselves.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
2, Let me ask you that same question. In our current political system, why should socialists have to collectively pay for the programs we don't care about? I sure as heck don't want my taxpayer dollars going towards profiling minorities, a bloated criminal justice system, no-bid defense contracts, more military interventions, propping up the nuclear energy industry, subsidizing Wall Street, etc. And I sure don't care about most of the crap I've heard the Republican Party advocate for either.
So do we also get to opt out of the policies we disagree with? Or is this a one way street?
originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
Worker owned cooperatives could force convential corporations from outsourcing services/goods because they will produce higher quality goods and create jobs. They will force the outsourcing corporations to compete with higher quality domestic product.
I can accept that, but how many companies would accept doing this? I worked for an employee owned company back in the 80's. Workers bought into company stock, but they were never part of the company decision making. In fact the company's logo was labeled as "an employee owned company." The owner's son made poor decisions and eventually the company was bought out by a smaller company that manufactured related equipment. So in the end, the workers were still screwed.
What owners?
Private healthcare can drive the prices down because of competition. Government issued healthcare would increase the prices because of guaranteed income from the tax player and little to no competition.
The U.S. no longer has competition. Monopolies were declared illegal, yet now we have an oligarchy system. Larger companies are buying out smaller companies. For example, just take a look at paid TV which everyone can relate to. They pull you in with low contract prices and than once the contract is over the prices skyrocket and are in-line with all competing cable and satellite prices. There's no big savings from one company to the next. Companies are creating bogus charges, just to rape the consumer. The same goes for wireless cell phone service. Remember when Ma Bell was broken-up? The cost of land line phone service skyrocketed. The same goes for Airlines, banks etc...
There is no competition because corporations have hijacked the lawmaking. Capitalism would be fine if business interests did not have lobbyists creating pro-corporate laws.
Have you ever ordered a product online? If you don't read the fine print, a company can automatically keep sending you products on a monthly basis and get away with making charges to your credit card. It's up to the consumer to call or email the company to cancel this ongoing service. When did consumers lose control of giving companies the authorization to charge their credit cards? Companies across this country are taking advantage of consumers and creating scams to bilk money out of consumers. It simply comes down to corporate GREED!
People can choose to not buy from them again. A competitor can just not screw over their customers and that adds value to their service. Go ahead screw over your customers you'll just go out of business when everyone goes to the competitor across the street that does not screw over their customers
Why not have a private social security retirement fund operated by small businesses that is not apart of government and is subject to market competition
I can agree with that. It would prevent slimy politicians thinking they have a right to use the public's saved money for their own use. However, there would have to be some kind of oversight and accountability to make sure private companies don't scam the public. It happens all the time with investors.
Welfare can be operated by competing small business with the aid of public charities without the need for government.Probably for a lot less with less abuse and more oversight
Oversight is key. I don't have a problem with some of these socialized programs being run by private businesses, but they would have to be held accountable for every penny and not be driven by profit. The problem with private companies is most donations go toward outrageous CEO salaries and much of the money doesn't reach the people who need it. Salaries and operating expenses should be capped to keep greed from rearing it's ugly head. I don't know how competing companies would keep the focus on citizen's needs rather than profit.
if the companies offer poor services because of CEO/executive salaries what is to stop a competing company with a fraction of the overhead to offer the same services cheaper with better quality/better services.
Actual socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production. Government enforces this and that is what I don't agree with.Capitalism is anyone with capital can own the means of production with Government protecting the right to own it.Government is not necessary to protect private property.Guns are.Private security is a good idea.
The problem is, we don't have true capitalism and it's being driven by Greed.So?...That greed drives innovation and competition. It's not a bad thing. We're losing manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico39% US corporate tax rate,US federal/state regulations,sweat shop labor,no minimum wage,no workers comp,etc etc because of this. Companies simply no longer appreciate their workers and see them as being expendable just to increase their investor's returns. Corporations are also unfairly influencing our government representatives. In the end, the citizen's lose.
Yes business needs to be out of legislation.
Private healthcare can offer better services for cheaper and higher quality.
I disagree, they're doing a terrible job now! How do you put a profit on people's health? Prescription and medical care costs in the U.S. is much higher than other industrialized nations. If I recall, CNN had a documentary on Taiwan's healthcare system. A reporter in the United States had a medical problem and compared his treatment and costs of both systems. It was outrageous how much money he saved in Taiwan's system. They were as technically equipped and professional as the U.S. system. He was impressed on how quick his services were rendered. If you can find that documentary somewhere online, it's definitely worth a look!
Why do you think our medical care costs are high? What would you as a medical care service provider do if the government offered you medicare? Would you charge as much as you can get away with or be nice to the customer and sell the service for a cheap as possible?
It's strange, but it always seems like most of these interesting and enlightening documentaries are always shown in the early morning hours. (Thanks to my insomnia, I get to see them, lol).
I agree to disagree. I don't believe in government robbing people for social programs. Why not have people donate to a social services fund? Why not have a optional social services tax on people's water/rent/waste disposal bill to the local municipality?
I can also agree to disagree. I just don't think the answers are that simple. I think Capitalism has developed to a point where it has overwhelming influence on our government, the consumer and the citizens of the United States. Government is no longer for and by the people because of it's influence on our representatives.
I also think more power needs to be given to the peopleWho decides that? over congress and it decision making. Such as voting for Term Limits,Agree Campaign Finance Reform, setting salaries and benefits, removing lobbyistsAgree, and holding them accountable for spending and balancing the budget. The party system has done nothing but divide this country.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aazadan
Also, the US was founded on fiat currency.
Hog wash… Only congress shall have the power to coin money…. read that coin. One ounce denominations of gold, sliver nickel and copper.
Money as in intrinsic tangible precious metal. These coins today are near priceless. Paper is well, worthless paper.
Founding Fathers and Money