Are you a Collectivist or an Individualist?

[Dr.Who]

Eventually this country will come around to the fact that we have to cut back on the vast military industrial complex and all that entails that President Eisenhower warned us about. Stop any thought of future Nation Building. Stop giving away our tax dollars by the billions to other countries. On the latter I'm fine with food, clothing and medical aid but this throwing cash at them... not a fan.

I agree that we should cut most of that. I am not fine with the gov giving clothing and medical aid to other countries. The role of gov is to take care of people here - or are all of our needs taken care of already?

Individuals who want to give to the needy in other countries should do so generously.

And I'm for cutting government programs that don't work or are repetitious. But I also believe there a basic things like our elderly or healthcare that are too important not to fund.

You should fund them then. And if you can't do it alone then you should talk to your friends and get them to join you. what you should not do is violate the civil liberties of those who would choose to give their hard earned money toward saving cats and stray dogs (or even adopting unwanted babies or feeding the homeless) instead.

Hell I'd be in hog heaven if President Obama could have walked into office with the Clinton surplus and not The Bush Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. But you have to play the cards dealt ya.

How is it the worst? Is it more severe? No it is not.

 

[GenSeneca]

Interesting points and whether or not I see the vid I will consider them.

I highly recommend that video to anyone that that thinks all monopolies are bad or that all monopolies are created through nefarious practices by nefarious people.

A very brief summary of Epstein's lecture:

Rockefellar used technology and innovation to create his monopoly, not by plan but by default. Through the use of technology, he created a superior product than what his competitors offered. He was innovative in completely restructuring the collection, distilation and distribution chains which lowered his operating costs tremendously. So Rockefellar was able to provide a superior product, refine and distribute the product more quickly and reliably than competitors and because of his innovations, he was able to sell his product for far less than what his competition could sell it for and still make a profit.

Standard oil made petroleum products affordable to the poor for the first time, the result raised the standard of living in America and sparked an economic and industrial boom.

 

[top gun]

We spent multiple trillions on bank bailouts and stimulus and no one seemed to bat an eye... and you are going to now point to the military budget (which brings in far greater a return than is being spent) as being to high? As a percent of GDP, military spending is currently pretty low.

Bank bailouts happen almost never. Insanely high military spending is an ALL THE TIME THING.

Kill and go home does not solve the problem that brought about 9/11.

There is no total solution. This isn't a country that we can make it's military surrender. This is a philosophy. All we can do is work on preventive measures through intelligence and covert actions and make basically symbolic military strikes at those who target us... if we know where they are.

What is so stupid is this whole trying to occupy other countries is EXACTLY what the terrorist want. They can hardly ever get a good strike off in America. They want their profile raised. They get us to spend trillions of our national treasure just running around chasing them. That is EXACTLY their game plan.

The foreign aid budget (in all its forms) is well into the billions. Often times, cash is the best thing we can offer, or debt relief.

We sould not be the welfare check for the world. I look at this no different then I look at welfare in the US. A small amount of money for a very short time period so you can get on your feet and then if you don't... food stamps and a medical card only.

Whatever the amount we spend cut it in half immediately. I'd much MUCH rather have that money go to American programs like Social Security and Health Insurance Reform.

Well the soup kitchen won't work when it runs out of donated food...much like Medicare and Social Security won't work when they go bankrupt, which is coming up quickly.

It won't run out. Just like the soup kitchen won't run out. It will be shored up because it's vitally important.

You mean government manipulation of pricing does not work? Isn't that what we are trying to do to "fix" healthcare?

I'm saying that if private business had to deliver mail to every address in the entire US like the USPS does that would be much more expensive because there would be huge amounts of profit taking... just like in private health insurance companies. The USPS tries to keep it's prices at rock bottom.

Social Security offers a return of less than 1% on your investment, assuming you even live long enough to recoup it all. I can put money in an FDIC insured CD and get an easy 3%, even with the recession we are facing. Why on Earth would I want to invest in something that gives me a 1% return? That does not even cover inflation.

The same reason people start Christmas accounts at banks. Because it's secure and they would spend it if not automatically taking out and withheld.

You can say well that's there bad luck if they spend it but sometimes there is real need. What would happen is people would spend it and then they'd go on general relief (welfare) because America is not going to have 70 year olds living on the streets. At least with SS every worker is paying into the system.

Well, I have seen the number 20%, I have not seen 12%. Putting that aside however, all those loans were then packaged and derivitized and resold and created banks to be leveraged at insane amounts. Of course that does not matter when the Federal Government will bail you out I suppose.

Well I've posted it several times before... we've even discussed it. 12% were sub-prime. The fact is this was a perfect storm of not enough regulation on loans of all types and several other economic sector and housing sector problems that needed better regulation. Add the HUGE cost of Bush's folly in Iraq and things were desperate.

They are getting better now. By the last quarter of 2010 we will be in full rebound. The banks have already started paying billions back and GM has now announced they are ready starting to start paying back billions. It's working out.

GM to pay back government loans, readies offering
Nicolas Van Praet and Eric Lam, Financial Post
November 16, 2009

General Motors Co. said Monday it will begin paying back U.S. and Canadian government loans that helped it stave off collapse, the first step in readying an initial public offering that could come next year...

 

[top gun]

Even if we permanently disbanded our entire military, never spent another dime on defense, and stopped giving money to other countries - and we did all this tomorrow, that would only SLOW the collapse of the welfare state giving it another 25-50 years, it would not prevent the inevitable collapse.

We need to cut back I didn't say dissolve. We need to cut back on many things. Some Right & some Left preferred programs. But things like SS & Medicare are critical and must alway be kept in place. Health Insurance Reform will also save a tremendous amount in the long run.

The people that built the Titanic were so convinced it was unsinkable, they didn't bother putting enough lifeboats on board for all the passengers.

And some said America could never make it to the moon.

 

[Dr.Who]

I highly recommend that video to anyone that that thinks all monopolies are bad or that all monopolies are created through nefarious practices by nefarious people.

I may still watch it against my general rule not to watch vids.

I don't object to monopolies individually but in theory. But I may very well be wrong because that would be punishing the also theoretical noble monopoly due to the actions of the other not-so-noble monopolies.

However, should a business operate as a noble monopoly then it would not stand in the way of competitors arising and it would cease to be a monopoly as soon as the market allowed.

If a reconciliation is needed it would probably be to allow monopolies but to stop them from harming others or even to stop them from restricting the competition of others since that would be harm.

The dilemma is that history seems to show that monopolies do tend to harm others. Is the gov incapable of regulating monopolies in a meaningful way? Does that mean that the only choice is to simple ban them?

Perhaps all we need is for gov to keep a closer eye on monopolies than they do on other businesses?

 

[Dr.Who]

We need to cut back I didn't say dissolve. We need to cut back on many things. Some Right & some Left preferred programs. But things like SS & Medicare are critical and must alway be kept in place. Health Insurance Reform will also save a tremendous amount in the long run.

SS and medicaid do more harm now than good.

If we keep SS we would need to make some changes: first make each one actually state run and not fed run. Second any person who chooses to invest in his own private plan should be allowed to do so and not coerced into the public option. Third if one does invest in the public option one should be allowed to take back their own money if they choose to. Fourth keep SS about retirement from ones own account and don't stack other programs on the backs of those who are enrolled. Fifth, don't co-mingle the money in with the general funds, etc.

All in all I think that would never happen and we just need to phase out the program and replace it with a brand new start.

 

[top gun]

I agree that we should cut most of that. I am not fine with the gov giving clothing and medical aid to other countries. The role of gov is to take care of people here - or are all of our needs taken care of already?

Individuals who want to give to the needy in other countries should do so generously.

There's a fine line between being frugal and being indifferent. People of the world in critical situations needing food or medicine is a burden American can bear.

You can't count on private charities. They are never ever even close to enough. They are small good will gestures to a Goliath size need.

You should fund them then. And if you can't do it alone then you should talk to your friends and get them to join you. what you should not do is violate the civil liberties of those who would choose to give their hard earned money toward saving cats and stray dogs (or even adopting unwanted babies or feeding the homeless) instead.

And again people pay into Social Security and they get a benefit from it when they are too old or infirm to work. It's not welfare. You are living back 200 years ago with a fraction of the number of people most of who lived on farms or homesteads where they could grow food and raise animals and families lived together for generations.

We have to have systems that are 21st century systems. Thinking that churches can do all for the poor and elderly is as honest & realistic as saying the pony express could thrive today or wagon trains are going to come back and take over shipping from FedEx.

How is it the worst? Is it more severe? No it is not.

Posted numerous economic evaluations to ya like a zillion times now. I could pull dozens of these reports and you know it. If it somehow makes you feel better to downplay it I don't care. People know what it is.

BUSH'S RECORD? THE LONGEST RECESSION IN US HISTORY !! DECEMBER 2007 TO OCTOBER 2009....22 MONTHS !!!
It's official: Recession since Dec. '07

The National Bureau of Economic Research declares what most Americans already knew: the downturn has been going on for some time.
(CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .


Current recession on track to become worst since Great Depression
By Dennis Persica
March 08, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Factory jobs disappeared. Inflation soared. Unemployment climbed to alarming levels. The hungry lined up at soup kitchens.

It wasn't the Great Depression. It was the 1981-82 recession, widely considered America's worst since the depression.

That painful time during Ronald Reagan's presidency is a grim marker of how bad things can get. Yet the current recession could slice deeper into the U.S. economy.

If it lasts into April -- as it almost surely will -- this one will go on record as the longest in the postwar era. The 1981-82 and 1973-75 recessions each lasted 16 months.

 

[Dr.Who]

There's a fine line between being frugal and being indifferent. People of the world in critical situations needing food or medicine is a burden American can bear.

You can't count on private charities. They are never ever even close to enough. They are small good will gestures to a Goliath size need.

if you have a choice between giving American taxpayers moneys to other countries in opposition to the constitution or hoping that charities will do enough one can only obey the law or write an amendment.

Charities get their funds from the people and so do governments. If the government can get enough money so can charities.

Will charities collect enough? One thing is certain they will collect exactly the amount that reflects how important people think the need is, not more nor less. While governments will coerce money to collect more than people think is important or will collect too little for whatever reason that might be.

But can charities collect enough? America is the most generous country in the world when it comes to giving and that is precisely because we are prosperous, free, and retain more of our money to be able to give it. If you want to increase giving them we need to reduce taxes. A legitimate role gov can take is to inspire Americans to give.

Nevertheless any arguments you might make that we cannot or would not give enough are unsupported.

And again people pay into Social Security and they get a benefit from it when they are too old or infirm to work. It's not welfare. You are living back 200 years ago with a fraction of the number of people most of who lived on farms or homesteads where they could grow food and raise animals and families lived together for generations.

When gov does give people their own money it is not welfare. But parts of SS are welfare.

The change from many famrs to less does not change anything. But go ahead and show us that it does.

We have to have systems that are 21st century systems. Thinking that churches can do all for the poor and elderly is as honest & realistic as saying the pony express could thrive today or wagon trains are going to come back and take over shipping from FedEx.

I say that churches did and could. Show us that they can't. Then if they can't show us that that justifies coercively taking money from people and violating the constitution as written to do it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Posted numerous economic evaluations to ya like a zillion times now. I could pull dozens of these reports and you know it. If it somehow makes you feel better to downplay it I don't care. People know what it is.

BUSH'S RECORD? THE LONGEST RECESSION IN US HISTORY !! DECEMBER 2007 TO OCTOBER 2009....22 MONTHS !!!
It's official: Recession since Dec. '07

So by "worst" you really mean longest?!!

You realize that you first started saying that before October of 2009? It was not the longest when you first started saying that.

You realize that there were many that were far more severe. President Obama enacted multiple policies (like extending unemployment insurance) that caused it to be longer. He owns it now.

I would much prefer a long mild recession than a short severe one. Beyond that I would prefer one that can correct through market forces first.

 

[BigRob]

Bank bailouts happen almost never. Insanely high military spending is an ALL THE TIME THING.

Quite the opposite.. bank bailouts are pretty routine. Discounting all the FDIC stuff, you still have 1995, 1997, 1998, all of which saw massive bank bailouts.

There is no total solution. This isn't a country that we can make it's military surrender. This is a philosophy. All we can do is work on preventive measures through intelligence and covert actions and make basically symbolic military strikes at those who target us... if we know where they are.

So in your opinion our only option is symbolic military action?

What is so stupid is this whole trying to occupy other countries is EXACTLY what the terrorist want. They can hardly ever get a good strike off in America. They want their profile raised. They get us to spend trillions of our national treasure just running around chasing them. That is EXACTLY their game plan.

Terrorists do not "want" the American army in their backyard. They "want" to take a few cruise missiles and then be left alone again to plan. In fact, if you read what Bin Laden has said, he is upset mostly by the fact that we were even there in the first place. His war is to get us out...

We sould not be the welfare check for the world. I look at this no different then I look at welfare in the US. A small amount of money for a very short time period so you can get on your feet and then if you don't... food stamps and a medical card only.

Whatever the amount we spend cut it in half immediately. I'd much MUCH rather have that money go to American programs like Social Security and Health Insurance Reform.

We get a lot back for our foreign aid programs.

It won't run out. Just like the soup kitchen won't run out. It will be shored up because it's vitally important.

The American government says it is going to run out...

I'm saying that if private business had to deliver mail to every address in the entire US like the USPS does that would be much more expensive because there would be huge amounts of profit taking... just like in private health insurance companies. The USPS tries to keep it's prices at rock bottom.

So blowing billions is the preferred course of action?

The same reason people start Christmas accounts at banks. Because it's secure and they would spend it if not automatically taking out and withheld.

You can say well that's there bad luck if they spend it but sometimes there is real need. What would happen is people would spend it and then they'd go on general relief (welfare) because America is not going to have 70 year olds living on the streets. At least with SS every worker is paying into the system.

That is a terrible analogy. People gift money before the end of the year to save on taxes and continue to get a better return on their money than the meager 1% Social Security provides. I would fire my broker for generating a 1% return.

Well I've posted it several times before... we've even discussed it. 12% were sub-prime. The fact is this was a perfect storm of not enough regulation on loans of all types and several other economic sector and housing sector problems that needed better regulation. Add the HUGE cost of Bush's folly in Iraq and things were desperate.

Yea, not enough regulation on terrible loans that the government pushed and then guaranteed through Fannie and Freddie.

They are getting better now. By the last quarter of 2010 we will be in full rebound. The banks have already started paying billions back and GM has now announced they are ready starting to start paying back billions. It's working out.

Thinks were going to get better regardless. GM is only paying back a small portion, and the banks are not going to change how they act since they have again been saved by the government.

GM to pay back government loans, readies offering
Nicolas Van Praet and Eric Lam, Financial Post
November 16, 2009

General Motors Co. said Monday it will begin paying back U.S. and Canadian government loans that helped it stave off collapse, the first step in readying an initial public offering that could come next year...

That is only about $6 billion of they $80 or so they got, and most people (including the government) say we won't get it all back.

 

[top gun]

SS and medicaid do more harm now than good.

If we keep SS we would need to make some changes: first make each one actually state run and not fed run. Second any person who chooses to invest in his own private plan should be allowed to do so and not coerced into the public option. Third if one does invest in the public option one should be allowed to take back their own money if they choose to. Fourth keep SS about retirement from ones own account and don't stack other programs on the backs of those who are enrolled. Fifth, don't co-mingle the money in with the general funds, etc.

All in all I think that would never happen and we just need to phase out the program and replace it with a brand new start.

Well you said one thing that actually would be a much needed improvement... Don't co-mingle the money in with the general funds, etc. I like that you're basically quoting Al Gore's proposal when he ran for President... Put the Social Security trust fund in a lock box. That was a very good idea.

All the rest is not good nor practical. We need everybody in the pool for it to be maintained. There can never be some in & some out. And if we did let people out it would be a DISASTER! A large number of people would go through the money or invest it badly and then they'd be on our doorstep in their old age getting on general relief that they paid nothing into.

What will happen over time is two things. The fund will be shored up and the retirement age will slowly be inched forward due to longer life expectancy. And once the baby boomers get through the system the numbers start to change anyway back to a better ratio.

 

[top gun]

Nevertheless any arguments you might make that we cannot or would not give enough are unsupported.

Absolutely & completely untrue my friend. We had the opportunity to do just exactly what you purpose. It was a colossal failure. That's EXACTLY WHY we started these social safety net programs.

If things were lovely and everything was of a decent standard we never would have had such a huge need in the first place. Your argument is like saying... Led cups are cheap to make and they hold water good. There's no reason not to go back to led cups. Well yes there is. We found out led was making people crazy.

When gov does give people their own money it is not welfare. But parts of SS are welfare.

The fact is Social Security is a wonderful & very necessary thing and I'm sure you'll cash your checks when they come.

The change from many famrs to less does not change anything. But go ahead and show us that it does.

People today don't live in extended family housing and there isn't the ability to at least provide large amounts of homegrown food like back 200 years ago. Continuing housing has to be paid for food has to be bought.

I say that churches did and could. Show us that they can't. Then if they can't show us that that justifies coercively taking money from people and violating the constitution as written to do it.

If you say they could when they of course didn't then I'd have to call you ignorant of the facts of history... let alone the impact of the millions of more poor people today.

 

[GenSeneca]

However, should a business operate as a noble monopoly then it would not stand in the way of competitors arising and it would cease to be a monopoly as soon as the market allowed.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by using the word "noble", but as far as I'm concerned, if they are not violating the rights of any other individuals, or committing fraud, in the process of operating their business, there is no legitimate reason for government interference.

If a reconciliation is needed it would probably be to allow monopolies but to stop them from harming others...

Laws already exist that prevent a corporation from violating the rights of others or committing fraud. Government needs only to enforce them.

or even to stop them from restricting the competition of others since that would be harm.

So long as they do not commit fraud, or violate the rights of others, in an attempt to outdo their competition, there is no legitimate reason to interfere.

The dilemma is that history seems to show that monopolies do tend to harm others.

Think of an example where that is true. Now think of governments involvement with that monopoly. I think you will find that where government gets in bed with monopolies, problems arise, but where government limits its role to simply being the protector of rights, there are no problems.

Is the gov incapable of regulating monopolies in a meaningful way?

If one company dominates an industry, it should be much easier for government to keep watch over.

Perhaps all we need is for gov to keep a closer eye on monopolies than they do on other businesses?

Perhaps if government weren't so busy doing things other than protecting the rights of its citizens, they could do a better job of protecting our rights in all aspects of society.

Hopefully you don't have a general rule about not reading posted articles. I mentioned how government and business should not get in bed together because it always results in problems and abuses, the article below explains precisely what I'm referring to and why it should not be tolerated.

The Truth About the "Robber Barons"

It is a staple of history books to attach this derogatory phrase to such figures as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the great nineteenth-century railroad operators — Grenville Dodge, Leland Stanford, Henry Villard, James J. Hill, and others. To most historians writing on this period, these entrepreneurs committed thinly veiled acts of larceny to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers. Once again we see the image of the greedy, exploitative capitalist, but in many cases this is a distortion of the truth.

As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.

In the mousetrap industry, for instance, you can be a market entrepreneur by making better mousetraps and thereby convincing consumers to buy more of your mousetraps and less of your competitors', or you can lobby Congress to prohibit the importation of all foreign-made mousetraps. In the former situation the consumer voluntarily hands over his money for the superior mousetrap; in the latter case the consumer, not given anything (better) in return, pays more for existing mousetraps just because the import quota has reduced supply and therefore driven up prices.

The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.

In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled "robber barons" did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad,[1] and he and his business partners profited from this monopoly scheme. Unfortunately, the resentment that this naturally generated among the public was unfairly directed at other entrepreneurs who succeeded in the railroad industry without political interference that tilted the playing field in their direction. Thanks to historians who fail to (or refuse to) make this crucial distinction, many Americans have an inaccurate view of American capitalism.

 

[Richard Savage]

There is no right that exists independent of law. That includes the right to think and believe as you wish granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment is a direct grant of fundamental civil liberties (i.e., religion, speech, the press, petition and assembly and their derivative rights) afforded protection by law. The source of these rights is the Constitution, which under the Supremacy Clause, is the supreme law of the land. See U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Through the First Amendment, these essential freedoms are made legal rights. In the wording of the First Amendment, the framers of the Constitution intended to put these granted rights beyond state infringement; for without the guarantee of law, they would be subject to abridgment and abrogation by the state. Torcaso v. Watkins, 361 U.S. 488 (1961). Without the law, such rights would be ephemeral, meaningless, nothing. To say that the one exists independent of the other (like the “chicken or the egg” riddle) is fallacious; for the one cannot exist without the other.

 

[GenSeneca]

There is no right that exists independent of law.

That is like saying gravity exists because the law of gravity grants its existence. Our individual rights exist whether or not there are laws to protect them. The law does not create our rights, our laws protect our rights.

The First Amendment is a direct grant of fundamental civil liberties afforded protection by law.

The first amendment states that congress shall make no law abridging those freedoms, it does not state that those rights are created by virtue of the amendment.

The source of these rights is the Constitution,

The constitution is the guarantor of protection for our rights, not the source of them.

Through the First Amendment, these essential freedoms are made legal rights.

You really believe that simply writing a constitutional amendment, or law, will create a "right" out of thin air...

In the wording of the First Amendment, the framers of the Constitution intended to put these granted rights beyond state infringement;

Nowhere in the first amendment does it state that the amendment grants us those liberties.

for without the guarantee of law, they would be subject to abridgment and abrogation by the state.

Which is why the Constitution and laws exist, to protect, not create, our rights.

Without the law, such rights would be ephemeral, meaningless, nothing.

Without the threat of force or fraud, there would be no need for laws or government to protect our rights because our rights can only be violated by force and by fraud.

To say that the one exists independent of the other (like the “chicken or the egg” riddle) is fallacious; for the one cannot exist without the other.

Again I point to the existence of gravity. It exists whether or not there is a law defining it. Our individual rights exists, whether or not there are laws to protect them.

As you sit there in front of your computer, exercise your right to free speech by speaking aloud. It is your right. You can exercise such rights without the need for laws and without the need for government. Now put someone in the room who punches you in the face every time you open your mouth to speak. With the introduction of force, you can no longer exercise your right to speak without some form of protection.

Enter the need for government and laws.

The sole purpose for their existence is to protect our rights, not to grant us our rights, not to create our rights, but simply to be the protector of our rights. In order for government to protect our rights from those who would use force, we grant government a monopoly on the legal use of force.