I Want My Country Back

[Angry Dragon]

What the people here do NOT want to see is the government racing in to claim it seeks to rein in the rich and powerful...because the government IS the rich and powerful or at least their bought and paid-for representatives.

I totally agree with the above statement. 

What we want is the government to be so scaled back that its ability to use regulations, laws etc to crush the little guy is taken away. That isn't to say we want economic/social anarchy, that serves no ones interest.

I also believe that the government has grown too large over the years.  And a good hard look is needed to decide what needs to go.  I also do not want the little guy crushed.  Either the small business man/woman nor the average person.

We also don't like collective punishment embodied in many of these so-called reform schemes. Just because BP is a bad actor doesn't mean every oil producer is bad and they should not be punished unless and until they have been found to have acted improperly.

Ditto for the fact that taxes and regulations just add to the cost of production and as such invariably become passed dow to the consumer. That being said it becomes obvious that all of the so-called efforts to impart "fairness" really just hurt the people such schemes profess to protect.

I guess I come up with the questions of how one balances the need for production and protecting the people from pollution, unsafe working conditions, fair wages, etc.  I do know that there are companies out there that care about these things and others that the only thing that matters it seems is the bottom line. 

Perhaps the need to know what is fair is the first step.     

[Doc]

I guess I come up with the questions of how one balances the need for production and protecting the people from pollution, unsafe working conditions, fair wages, etc.  I do know that there are companies out there that care about these things and others that the only thing that matters it seems is the bottom line. 

Perhaps the need to know what is fair is the first step.     

"Fairness" is not a legitimate role of government........

The government does not need to involve itself in "unsafe working conditions, fair wages", et al, the individual is free to make their own choices as to what to do, and where to work.......

All government regulation vis-a-vis "pollution, safety, and wages" accomplishes is forcing companies to move their jobs elsewhere where the regulatory environment is less burdensome........

Hence the hypocrisy of liberalism........when ones government imposes regulation in order to "protect and insure fairness" towards workers.........the liberal cannot logically complain when the company ships the jobs overseas to a less onerous regulatory environment.......and the same principle applies to taxation......

You simply can't have it both ways......

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I guess I come up with the questions of how one balances the need for production and protecting the people from pollution, unsafe working conditions, fair wages, etc.  I do know that there are companies out there that care about these things and others that the only thing that matters it seems is the bottom line. 

Perhaps the need to know what is fair is the first step.     

The FDA began, in part, because people selling food were scamming their customers. In the olden days it was not uncommon for flour to be cut with chalk dust.

But ask any conservative economist and they will tell you: fraud is bad for business.

That is why the Constitution (COTUS) allows congress to set weights and measures. Congress CAN establish something like the FDA which in turn can regulate what can legally be labeled as "flour" and how much constitutes "one pound" etc. This in turn becomes a truly free market because the market is able to compete and buy with confidence.

But when the government comes along and starts dictating our levels of sodium, trans-fats, etc etc etc then suddenly we find out what should be bulwark has suddenly become a prison.

Last year I read an article that in California they were debating outlawing plasma TVs as bad for the environment. Don't get me started on so-called environmental science, we have an entire forum dedicated to it, but suddenly it was revealed that one of the biggest pushers of this notion of plasma = evil was the manufacturers of LCD TVs. That ANY business can use the halls of government to suppress a rival should give us cold shivers down our spines.

As G K Chesterton notes: morality, like art, involves knowing where to draw the line.

[Angry Dragon]

"Fairness" is not a legitimate role of government........

The government does not need to involve itself in "unsafe working conditions, fair wages", et al, the individual is free to make their own choices as to what to do, and where to work.......

All government regulation vis-a-vis "pollution, safety, and wages" accomplishes is forcing companies to move their jobs elsewhere where the regulatory environment is less burdensome........

Hence the hypocrisy of liberalism........when ones government imposes regulation in order to "protect and insure fairness" towards workers.........the liberal cannot logically complain when the company ships the jobs overseas to a less onerous regulatory environment.......and the same principle applies to taxation......

You simply can't have it both ways......

doc

It would seem that you and I are far apart on many issues.  I do not know if we would every get any closer.
Thank you for your replies and have a pleasant day

[USA4ME]

It would seem that you and I are far apart on many issues.  I do not know if we would every get any closer.
Thank you for your replies and have a pleasant day

Trying to legislate "fairness" is a losing proposition.  You're asking for people to join hands to fight, so I'm guessing that might mean eventually having to put your life on the line.  The type of gov't the left desires is not worth dying for.  Why should one fight to eventually become a slave?

.

[Doc]

It would seem that you and I are far apart on many issues.  I do not know if we would every get any closer.
Thank you for your replies and have a pleasant day

True....I am a "Constitutional Conservative"........to me any taint of the current form of liberalism is poisonous, and must be vehemently opposed.  The days of "compromise" are beginning to end. 

Hence the import of the title of this thread, and what it means to most of us........we want to take it back from people that think like you do (an observation, not an insult).

Most on this forum will agree with much of what I have stated, therefore, you now are fully aware of first, where you are, and second, what to expect.......

You sir, have a pleasant day as well.......

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

It would seem that you and I are far apart on many issues.  I do not know if we would every get any closer.
Thank you for your replies and have a pleasant day

Don't you think it is at least plausible that high taxes and regulatory costs could make domestic companies less competitive?

Unless you plan on banning imports or jacking-up tariffs to make import cost more then you run that risk and you must be willing to accept the consequences but FYI trade wars are bad for everyone, hence calling them wars.

It is possible to provide safe working conditions for US workers without crushing their parent company. Common law could settle many of these issues, i.e. lawsuits build case law precedent as to what does or does not create a safe work environment. I would also hasten to add that once law/precedent is created the law is obligated to release an employer from liability if they operate within the law. Case in point: an employee was trampled and killed on a "Black Friday" shopping stampede. A regulation was written after the fact by OSHA and then OSHA used this new reg to ex post facto fine the store.

It seems to me that many liberal policies seem based on anger over owners and investors having more money than workers. This begs us to ask if nobody has more money who pays for the worker. I never could get a poor man to pay more a salary higher than his own. Yet, when the capital providers are punished they simply sit on their capital or send it where it will grow. In the end the policy meant to help me, the common bunny, ends up hurting me the most.

But I would remind you of your own sentiment: the rich and powerful ARE the ones in government. So any notion that they should be the ones to decide what is fair is putting the fox in the hen house and asking what's for dinner.

Let's use our political energies not to create "fairness" (what is fair, fair to whom and who decides?) but a society free from force or fraud and prepared for calamity.

[USA4ME]

Here's Angry Dragon's DU Journal is anyone is interested.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Angry%20Dragon

I can tell you right now, AD,  having read a portion of your comments at DU, the things you say there about those of whom you oppose politically are not words that demonstrate you want to "work together," as you claimed in your opening statement.  If you're truly seeking to find a way to work together, the first step is to stop saying the things you do at DU.  You've got to change yourself first, and after a period of demonstrating you can do that, then it might be time to explore what you claim you would like to do.

.

[Angry Dragon]

Here's Angry Dragon's DU Journal is anyone is interested.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Angry%20Dragon

I can tell you right now, AD,  having read a portion of your comments at DU the things you say there about those of whom you oppose politically are not words that demonstrate you want to "work together," as you claimed in your opening statement.  If you're truly seeking to find a way to work together, the first step is to stop saying the things you do at DU.  You've got to change yourself first, and after a period of demonstrating you can do that, then it might be time to explore what you claim you would like to do.

.

That sounds fair enough.  I did tell you where to find me.  I did not come here to lurk and disrupt.  I cam here to listen and learn and to share my thoughts.  That can not be done by hiding.  I came here to find some common ground to start the process. 

[Angry Dragon]

Don't you think it is at least plausible that high taxes and regulatory costs could make domestic companies less competitive?

Unless you plan on banning imports or jacking-up tariffs to make import cost more then you run that risk and you must be willing to accept the consequences but FYI trade wars are bad for everyone, hence calling them wars.

It is possible to provide safe working conditions for US workers without crushing their parent company. Common law could settle many of these issues, i.e. lawsuits build case law precedent as to what does or does not create a safe work environment. I would also hasten to add that once law/precedent is created the law is obligated to release an employer from liability if they operate within the law. Case in point: an employee was trampled and killed on a "Black Friday" shopping stampede. A regulation was written after the fact by OSHA and then OSHA used this new reg to ex post facto fine the store.

It seems to me that many liberal policies seem based on anger over owners and investors having more money than workers. This begs us to ask if nobody has more money who pays for the worker. I never could get a poor man to pay more a salary higher than his own. Yet, when the capital providers are punished they simply sit on their capital or send it where it will grow. In the end the policy meant to help me, the common bunny, ends up hurting me the most.

But I would remind you of your own sentiment: the rich and powerful ARE the ones in government. So any notion that they should be the ones to decide what is fair is putting the fox in the hen house and asking what's for dinner.

Let's use our political energies not to create "fairness" (what is fair, fair to whom and who decides?) but a society free from force or fraud and prepared for calamity.

I am not advocating that the ones in power right now are the best ones to decide what is fair.  It is not working right now. 

A report came out not too long ago, about 2 weeks at the most, that said that the average CEO salary was 317 times the person at the bottom.  It used to be about 30 to 40 times higher.  That is a big jump.  Also the corporations are already sitting on $10 trillion dollars that they are not putting into the system and creating jobs

I had not thought about the case law and will ponder it.  At the same time should people have to die so a law gets passed to protect workers??

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I am not advocating that the ones in power right now are the best ones to decide what is fair.  It is not working right now.

"Right now?"

Please tell us when humanity suddenly becomes beneficent, fair-minded and trustworthy.

Until that day it will always be "right now." 

A report came out not too long ago, about 2 weeks at the most, that said that the average CEO salary was 317 times the person at the bottom.  It used to be about 30 to 40 times higher.  That is a big jump.  Also the corporations are already sitting on $10 trillion dollars that they are not putting into the system and creating jobs

I had not thought about the case law and will ponder it.  At the same time should people have to die so a law gets passed to protect workers??

Nixon tried using price controls to stave off inflation. The market worked around him.

CEO salaries are a price. If you try to control them the market will work around you. Even in an economic environment as draconian as the USSR the market still worked its will. The government is incapable of effectively controlling prices and wages. In time the share-holders will decide they think the price of an effective CEO is too high and that figure will come down.

[Carl]

That sounds fair enough.  I did tell you where to find me.  I did not come here to lurk and disrupt.  I cam here to listen and learn and to share my thoughts.  That can not be done by hiding.  I came here to find some common ground to start the process. 

You are certainly not the first to sign up and post here and it seems that when most from DU do they suddenly become civil in discourse yet when they post there it is hysterics and lunancy.

Why is that?

[USA4ME]

Also the corporations are already sitting on $10 trillion dollars that they are not putting into the system and creating jobs

As a small business owner, I can tell you I'm sitting on capital right now and will continue to do so.  The reason I'm doing it is for a reason I've personally found many are also doing:  They're not quite sure just what new regulations and/or taxes Obama might impose upon us as business people, and that includes all this healthcare mess.

I've got to budget.  Uncertainty means USA4ME has to hedge his bets until such time I can feel confident that 1) he and his desires can be stopped, or 2) I know what's coming down the pike in order to determine exactly what reductions will have to be made in order to cut costs and still be able to stay in business.  Because one thing I know for sure; whatever he does won't make my overhead costs go down.

.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

As a small business owner, I can tell you I'm sitting on capital right now and will continue to do so.  The reason I'm doing it is for a reason I've personally found many are also doing:  They're not quite sure just want new regulations and/or taxes Obama might impose upon us as business people, and that includes all this healthcare mess.

I've got to budget.  Uncertainty means USA4ME has to hedge his bets until such time I can feel confident that 1) he and his desires can be stopped, or 2) I know what's coming down the pike in order to determine exactly what reductions will have to be made in order to cut costs and still be able to stay in business.  Because one thing I know for sure; whatever he does won't make my overhead costs go down.

.

IOW: Joe the Plumber was publicly scourged for being a prophet.

[Doc]

As a small business owner, I can tell you I'm sitting on capital right now and will continue to do so.  The reason I'm doing it is for a reason I've personally found many are also doing:  They're not quite sure just want new regulations and/or taxes Obama might impose upon us as business people, and that includes all this healthcare mess.

I've got to budget.  Uncertainty means USA4ME has to hedge his bets until such time I can feel confident that 1) he and his desires can be stopped, or 2) I know what's coming down the pike in order to determine exactly what reductions will have to be made in order to cut costs and still be able to stay in business.  Because one thing I know for sure; whatever he does won't make my overhead costs go down.

.

A wise move........and almost universal in US business today.  Large corporations as well as small businesses, and even just investors like myself are sitting on a pile of cash, due to the simple fact that no one knows on whose back the next Democrat target is going to get painted.  Obama and the Democrats may believe that they can legislate their socialist utopia in a few years, but the capitalists are not buying it, and the flight of capital off-shore is increasing at an alarming rate.  Liberals (and socialists) always forget that wealth and capital are very "portable".

Earnings are up, but the market continues to trend downward........all due to the fact that most reasonable business people know that liberal economic policies NEVER work, therefore, they are simply "waiting it out"

Should the Republicans win a majority in the House this November, and have the ability to emasculate the liberal agenda through cutting off funding for their proposals, we will likely see some confidence return........for now, it ain't gonna happen.

doc

[Angry Dragon]

You are certainly not the first to sign up and post here and it seems that when most from DU do they suddenly become civil in discourse yet when they post there it is hysterics and lunancy.

Why is that?

I do not believe I have called a poster an idiot nor stupid.  Why would I start now. 
I have called some politicians those things.  And yes some democratic politicians are stupid.

[Eupher]

AD, I've read this thread with a small amount of interest but have avoided chiming in until now.

From your DU blog:

They often say that god intended for families to exist of one man and one woman and have a great fear of homosexuals destroying the family. I have never heard them give an example of this destruction they often speak of. I hear and read often of people that invoke god to justify their actions having sex outside of their marriage, having sex with minors, and numerous marriages and other things that go against marriage.

There's no way in hell we can join hands and sing Kum Bah Yah with this kind of drivel -- even if I did sing.

Being against homosexuality is NOT the same as being homophobic. Get that straight.

By definition, homosexuals who cohabit cannot form the traditional family without resorting to technology to do it. By "traditional family", I mean husband/father, wife/mother, and children. Like it or not, the traditional family is still the way things are done. Homosexuals who cohabit are the EXCEPTION rather than the RULE. Since when does society have to sit up and take notice when a minority exists? You want to pack fudge? Hey, knock yourself out. Just don't expect the world to instantly accept your abnormal lifestyle.

I hear and read often of people that invoke god to justify their actions having sex outside of their marriage, having sex with minors, and numerous marriages and other things that go against marriage.

Care to explain this pile of shit? It sounds incoherent to me. Do you normally blog incoherent shit?

found I had to go back at look at god's family to better understand the family that god intended for us. What I found was a god the father that impregnated two woman as they slept so he could could have a son, and in that household lives a ghost of some kind. So we have a father, son and holy ghost thingy. Is this the family the christians wish everyone to have?? No women, except the concept for men to use them as they wish. An all male household.

Just who comprises "god's family"? And who are you to understand ANYTHING that God does? Are you putting yourself at the same level as God? Even if you believe in God, which you clearly don't?

My problem with young pups like you is you don't know you don't know. You pretend things are all sweetness and light when in point of fact you're as clueless as the day is long.

Some day when your ass is truly, deeply, irretrievably in a sling and you think you're truly not going to survive the encounter, but do survive, come back and tell me that God doesn't exist. I double dog dare you.

[Carl]

I do not believe I have called a poster an idiot nor stupid.  Why would I start now. 
I have called some politicians those things.  And yes some democratic politicians are stupid.

I don`t know if you have or haven`t and didn`t mean to sound like a personal accusation but in general.
It seems that they have one personality to post there and another one to post here.

[Godot showed up]

I am not advocating that the ones in power right now are the best ones to decide what is fair.  It is not working right now.  

A report came out not too long ago, about 2 weeks at the most, that said that the average CEO salary was 317 times the person at the bottom.  It used to be about 30 to 40 times higher.  That is a big jump.  Also the corporations are already sitting on $10 trillion dollars that they are not putting into the system and creating jobs

I had not thought about the case law and will ponder it.  At the same time should people have to die so a law gets passed to protect workers??

But are you advocating that the federal government have the power to decide how private industry apportions its own capital? That's Mr. SB's point, I'd say. Which is the worse evil: that government decides what the private citizens who are supposed to be the masters of the government may do with their own wealth, which they earned or created and the government did not, or that private citizens decide, on their own, to apportion their own wealth at such a disparate ratio?

You've written "the ones in power now" are not the ones you'd advocate have such control. So you're saying this would be your positon with a different set of elected leaders? That salary control be made the law of the land?

Do you understand why we consider this idea tyranny? Or why we can't understand why you don't consider this idea tyranny?

[Angry Dragon]

I don`t know if you have or haven`t and didn`t mean to sound like a personal accusation but in general.
It seems that they have one personality to post there and another one to post here.

I did not take it has a personal accusation, so it is okay.  I try not to change my personality where I post.
My feeling is that if one only listens to one side then they end up with a slant to that one side.  So I came here to hear the other side.
Not calling anyone out here, just stating my belief.

[Carl]

I did not take it has a personal accusation, so it is okay.  I try not to change my personality where I post.
My feeling is that if one only listens to one side then they end up with a slant to that one side.  So I came here to hear the other side.
Not calling anyone out here, just stating my belief.

Let me ask you a question about one of the hot topics of late and the government pumping (borrowed) money into the economy via a demand side philosophy.
I have equated it to priming a pump over a dry hole and thinking a well will develop.

No doubt it can push reported numbers in a positive direction for a bit but how is it sustained after the money is given then spent?
At some point the deficits created will cause a collapse (see Greece) or will push taxes to the point of so little profit that all expansion ceases.

[Revolution]

I did not take it has a personal accusation, so it is okay.  I try not to change my personality where I post.
My feeling is that if one only listens to one side then they end up with a slant to that one side.  So I came here to hear the other side.
Not calling anyone out here, just stating my belief.

In case you haven't noticed, we have a whole sub forum dedicated to listening to the other side. Conversations outside of that forum, and on the whole forum in general deal with listening to the other side. Not to mention proving them WRONG, and poking a bit of fun, but I digress.

Try learning about the forum before you state what you think you know.

Some day when your ass is truly, deeply, irretrievably in a sling and you think you're truly not going to survive the encounter, but do survive, come back and tell me that God doesn't exist. I double dog dare you.

Many thanks for posting this before I got to it. I have had that kind of experience at least once. That's one of the reasons I am absolutely certain there is a God.

[Angry Dragon]

Let me ask you a question about one of the hot topics of late and the government pumping (borrowed) money into the economy via a demand side philosophy.
I have equated it to priming a pump over a dry hole and thinking a well will develop.

No doubt it can push reported numbers in a positive direction for a bit but how is it sustained after the money is given then spent?
At some point the deficits created will cause a collapse (see Greece) or will push taxes to the point of so little profit that all expansion ceases.

I am not sure I understand the question you are asking.  If you are talking about the unemployment extension then I would say that would be a good investment.  I think the money would flow through many hands in the local communities.  It would secure others jobs that are vulnerable at this time.  Where are the jobs these people need to survive??  

I do not know what would help this country turn around.  One may have to look at what the biggest expenditures are, the things that are adding the most to the deficits.

[Revolution]

If you want a reference, see "ObamaCare."

[Carl]

I am not sure I understand the question you are asking.  If you are talking about the unemployment extension then I would say that would be a good investment.  I think the money would flow through many hands in the local communities.  It would secure others jobs that are vulnerable at this time.  Where are the jobs these people need to survive??  

I do not know what would help this country turn around.  One may have to look at what the biggest expenditures are, the things that are adding the most to the deficits.

That was my point,it can make temporary numbers better but how does it sustain that without having to pump in more?
You touched the reason it is not sound economics and I suspect didn`t even realize it yet that is the mindset of what we now have in Congress and the White House.