Hooray for the tax cut…

[CA renter]

[quote=deadzone]I’m tired of all the right wing rhetoric about “risk taking” and how taxes are unfair because people should be rewarded for “Taking risks”. All this talk about risk taking sounds a lot to me like gambling. Is gambling something we should encourage? And as with any form of gambling, there are winners and losers. What do the right-wing no-tax people suppose should happen to the losers? Is all the money they made “risk taking” so sacred that some of it can’t be taxed in part to help provide a social safety net for those less fortunate? And one more thing the right-wingers don’t comprehend, being more fortunate doesn’t necessarily mean you worked any harder.[/quote]

Good post, deadzone. “Risk-taking” does not equate to “productivity” or any other beneficial thing.

As a matter of fact, some of us would say that all of this “risk-taking” is what caused our current financial problems.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.[/quote]

For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.[/quote]

For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.[/quote]

For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.[/quote]

For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]

Everyone here acknowledges that money is power. The super wealthy have it and use it to their advantage. There are many here who resent that. Yet many here would not have that problem giving the government more money (and more power). Well what happens if government has more money? It gets more power.

I would rather that the people of the U.S. be in charge of that money instead of the government. In that, we the people would have the power, not the government. We should already be well aware of what happens when the government has overwhelming power against its citizens. The history for that is not good.[/quote]

For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.[/quote]

A powerful government that is unaccountable to no one, is far worse than a secret cabal of robber barons who are at least subject to the laws and government of the United States. There is no check on government except for itself. This is a principle from the founding fathers.

However powerful today’s robber barons are, they are still vulnerable to an essential fact: they are only able to make their money by persuading people to willingly entertain their businesses. If people are not willing to use their service or product, they are finished. Today’s businesses are also vulnerable to the government. They can be broken up or laws can be passed against their practices.

You can assail all you want against businesses, but they cannot forcibly take your money. People have to willingly give it. There is no such restriction on government. If the government wishes to take it, it will.

When businesses succeed, they often bring everyone else with them, not just the head of the company.

No, businesses are not perfect. But they are not in a position of absolute power, like the government. Between those two evils, I would rather choose the businesses, limited by the government and by the power of persuasion, rather than a powerful government, which can only take by force. That’s what the founding fathers knew.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.[/quote]

A powerful government that is unaccountable to no one, is far worse than a secret cabal of robber barons who are at least subject to the laws and government of the United States. There is no check on government except for itself. This is a principle from the founding fathers.

However powerful today’s robber barons are, they are still vulnerable to an essential fact: they are only able to make their money by persuading people to willingly entertain their businesses. If people are not willing to use their service or product, they are finished. Today’s businesses are also vulnerable to the government. They can be broken up or laws can be passed against their practices.

You can assail all you want against businesses, but they cannot forcibly take your money. People have to willingly give it. There is no such restriction on government. If the government wishes to take it, it will.

When businesses succeed, they often bring everyone else with them, not just the head of the company.

No, businesses are not perfect. But they are not in a position of absolute power, like the government. Between those two evils, I would rather choose the businesses, limited by the government and by the power of persuasion, rather than a powerful government, which can only take by force. That’s what the founding fathers knew.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.[/quote]

A powerful government that is unaccountable to no one, is far worse than a secret cabal of robber barons who are at least subject to the laws and government of the United States. There is no check on government except for itself. This is a principle from the founding fathers.

However powerful today’s robber barons are, they are still vulnerable to an essential fact: they are only able to make their money by persuading people to willingly entertain their businesses. If people are not willing to use their service or product, they are finished. Today’s businesses are also vulnerable to the government. They can be broken up or laws can be passed against their practices.

You can assail all you want against businesses, but they cannot forcibly take your money. People have to willingly give it. There is no such restriction on government. If the government wishes to take it, it will.

When businesses succeed, they often bring everyone else with them, not just the head of the company.

No, businesses are not perfect. But they are not in a position of absolute power, like the government. Between those two evils, I would rather choose the businesses, limited by the government and by the power of persuasion, rather than a powerful government, which can only take by force. That’s what the founding fathers knew.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.[/quote]

A powerful government that is unaccountable to no one, is far worse than a secret cabal of robber barons who are at least subject to the laws and government of the United States. There is no check on government except for itself. This is a principle from the founding fathers.

However powerful today’s robber barons are, they are still vulnerable to an essential fact: they are only able to make their money by persuading people to willingly entertain their businesses. If people are not willing to use their service or product, they are finished. Today’s businesses are also vulnerable to the government. They can be broken up or laws can be passed against their practices.

You can assail all you want against businesses, but they cannot forcibly take your money. People have to willingly give it. There is no such restriction on government. If the government wishes to take it, it will.

When businesses succeed, they often bring everyone else with them, not just the head of the company.

No, businesses are not perfect. But they are not in a position of absolute power, like the government. Between those two evils, I would rather choose the businesses, limited by the government and by the power of persuasion, rather than a powerful government, which can only take by force. That’s what the founding fathers knew.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
For one thing, private entities are even less accountable to “We the People” than the govt is. Personally, I fear a powerful, unaccountable group of private capitalists far more than a wealthy government that is run “by the people and for the people.”

The problem arises when a select few essentially take over the govt via corruption and bribery — and when “We the People” have our rights and power stripped from us — so that the elite can do whatever benefits them, to the detriment of everyone else.[/quote]

A powerful government that is unaccountable to no one, is far worse than a secret cabal of robber barons who are at least subject to the laws and government of the United States. There is no check on government except for itself. This is a principle from the founding fathers.

However powerful today’s robber barons are, they are still vulnerable to an essential fact: they are only able to make their money by persuading people to willingly entertain their businesses. If people are not willing to use their service or product, they are finished. Today’s businesses are also vulnerable to the government. They can be broken up or laws can be passed against their practices.

You can assail all you want against businesses, but they cannot forcibly take your money. People have to willingly give it. There is no such restriction on government. If the government wishes to take it, it will.

When businesses succeed, they often bring everyone else with them, not just the head of the company.

No, businesses are not perfect. But they are not in a position of absolute power, like the government. Between those two evils, I would rather choose the businesses, limited by the government and by the power of persuasion, rather than a powerful government, which can only take by force. That’s what the founding fathers knew.

[paramount]

A tiny an example of an out-of-control hick town government: The City Manager of Temecula Shawn Nelson makes almost as much as the President of the United States of America.

Not to mention his pension and lifetime medical and other assorted benefits.

On top of that, we also have a high paid Mayor! WTF is the Mayor doing besides riding around in a parade car waving to the citizen suckers?

Sickening.

[paramount]

A tiny an example of an out-of-control hick town government: The City Manager of Temecula Shawn Nelson makes almost as much as the President of the United States of America.

Not to mention his pension and lifetime medical and other assorted benefits.

On top of that, we also have a high paid Mayor! WTF is the Mayor doing besides riding around in a parade car waving to the citizen suckers?

Sickening.

[paramount]

A tiny an example of an out-of-control hick town government: The City Manager of Temecula Shawn Nelson makes almost as much as the President of the United States of America.

Not to mention his pension and lifetime medical and other assorted benefits.

On top of that, we also have a high paid Mayor! WTF is the Mayor doing besides riding around in a parade car waving to the citizen suckers?

Sickening.

[paramount]

A tiny an example of an out-of-control hick town government: The City Manager of Temecula Shawn Nelson makes almost as much as the President of the United States of America.

Not to mention his pension and lifetime medical and other assorted benefits.

On top of that, we also have a high paid Mayor! WTF is the Mayor doing besides riding around in a parade car waving to the citizen suckers?

Sickening.

[Author]

Posts