Hooray for the tax cut…

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

But the government is supposed to be accountable to “We the People.” That’s what the founding fathers wanted.

The “robber barons” are NOT accountable to the people, and they are only subject to the laws that they create for themselves! Who do you think is behind all the bills submitted to Congress that determine where money will go? Do you think it’s the empty-headed suits on Capitol Hill? I can assure you, the robber barons are behind the great majority of laws that control the flow of money, either in the form of taxation, or the regulations that FORCE us to use certain services in order to transact business (all under the guise of “protecting the consumer” when creating laws that require us to use “licensed” people/entities — who are almost always associated with a group of powerful lobbyists).

What about intellectual property? We are FORCED, by law, to purchase goods and services that might be more expensive and less effective, because our govt protects the rights of certain businesses/people to exclusively market a good or service.

What about limited liability that protects gamblers and speculators from responsibility when they cause great harm to innocent people?

Are you honestly going to tell me that we had a choice when all the bailouts (trillions of dollars, and we have yet to see all the damage!) were passed to protect — and grow! — the wealth of the robber barons who decimated our society?

No, we do not have a choice, and the elite are NOT held responsible for the damage they inflict on our society.

If “free-market” capitalism is such a Panacea, can you show us a single example of a “free market, capitalist” nation (without any social safety nets or public regulation/control over it’s natural resources and infrastructure, or any other form of “socialism”) that has performed better than its more “socialist” peers?

[surveyor]

[quote]But the government is supposed to be accountable to “We the People.” That’s what the founding fathers wanted.[/quote]

Very true. It would be nice if the people in the government followed that principle.

[quote]The “robber barons” are NOT accountable to the people, and they are only subject to the laws that they create for themselves! Who do you think is behind all the bills submitted to Congress that determine where money will go? Do you think it’s the empty-headed suits on Capitol Hill? I can assure you, the robber barons are behind the great majority of laws that control the flow of money, either in the form of taxation, or the regulations that FORCE us to use certain services in order to transact business (all under the guise of “protecting the consumer” when creating laws that require us to use “licensed” people/entities — who are almost always associated with a group of powerful lobbyists).[/quote]

Yes, but who allowed them to write those laws in the first place? The politicians in the government who peddle their influence and power into status, money. The ones who sell their power and sell out the people who they represent.

You want to blame companies for pursuing their self-interest, but you give the people in government a pass. Yes, companies can lobby, persuade, influence all they want to get the laws they want passed, but they aren’t the ones passing the laws. Who are you going to blame, the companies asking for the laws or the Congressmen who took money and can’t say no? Because ultimately it’s the government.

[quote]What about intellectual property? We are FORCED, by law, to purchase goods and services that might be more expensive and less effective, because our govt protects the rights of certain businesses/people to exclusively market a good or service.[/quote]

But you still have the choice to not purchase those products. You don’t have the buy Microsoft. What happened when people wanted a choice other than Microsoft? Linux popped up. Java. Even telephones, it used to be a monopoly, protected by the government. But now you have Skype, VOIP, even satellite and cell phones. The market finds a way and it does it through innovation. It gives you a choice, even choices that were previously constrained by the government.

[quote]What about limited liability that protects gamblers and speculators from responsibility when they cause great harm to innocent people?[/quote]

There are remedies to this. It’s called the judicial system. It’s not perfect. It sucks. But it’s the best system we’ve got.

[quote]Are you honestly going to tell me that we had a choice when all the bailouts (trillions of dollars, and we have yet to see all the damage!) were passed to protect — and grow! — the wealth of the robber barons who decimated our society?[/quote]

You know, it was the government who passed those things. They were the ones who decided to implement it. When the bank bailouts happened, many banks DID NOT WANT THEM. They were forced into it by the government. Now certainly there are many people who were to blame for the real estate bust, but many of them have suffered for it already. Many went out of business already.

[quote]No, we do not have a choice, and the elite are NOT held responsible for the damage they inflict on our society.[/quote]

If you’re talking about you and me personally not having a choice, well that’s the representative government system for you. Maybe you and me would not have voted for the bailouts and all that, but that’s why we voted for our representatives.

But that’s the problem, when people in the government overstep their bounds and start voting special treatment for their special interests and sell their influence, sell their power.

[quote]If “free-market” capitalism is such a Panacea, can you show us a single example of a “free market, capitalist” nation (without any social safety nets or public regulation/control over it’s natural resources and infrastructure, or any other form of “socialism”) that has performed better than its more “socialist” peers?[/quote]

Straw man argument. You assume I want an unregulated free market. I don’t. I don’t mind reasonable regulations, standards and structures. I believe in there being certain rules. Capitalism doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a social safety net.

But there are societies that have reasonable rules in place and they have very good economies. Hong Kong was one (before the Communist takeover). Capitalistically speaking, that was a panacea of business, but it still wasn’t perfect.

One of the sad facts of life is that there are certain personalities that are drawn to the public offices like Congressmen, President, and other political positions. That’s why you often see politicians with an entitlement mentality (see Charlie Rangel), or think that the rules don’t apply to them (Mark Sanford). The founding fathers knew this because they studied history and were students of humanity. As a result, it was necessary for them to structure a government that limited its power over its citizens. To limit abuse of power, a limited government was necessary.

Now certainly we are all humans. None of us are perfect. Businesses have abuses as well as successes. Governments have abuses as well as successes. However, because of the nature of government, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[surveyor]

[quote]But the government is supposed to be accountable to “We the People.” That’s what the founding fathers wanted.[/quote]

Very true. It would be nice if the people in the government followed that principle.

[quote]The “robber barons” are NOT accountable to the people, and they are only subject to the laws that they create for themselves! Who do you think is behind all the bills submitted to Congress that determine where money will go? Do you think it’s the empty-headed suits on Capitol Hill? I can assure you, the robber barons are behind the great majority of laws that control the flow of money, either in the form of taxation, or the regulations that FORCE us to use certain services in order to transact business (all under the guise of “protecting the consumer” when creating laws that require us to use “licensed” people/entities — who are almost always associated with a group of powerful lobbyists).[/quote]

Yes, but who allowed them to write those laws in the first place? The politicians in the government who peddle their influence and power into status, money. The ones who sell their power and sell out the people who they represent.

You want to blame companies for pursuing their self-interest, but you give the people in government a pass. Yes, companies can lobby, persuade, influence all they want to get the laws they want passed, but they aren’t the ones passing the laws. Who are you going to blame, the companies asking for the laws or the Congressmen who took money and can’t say no? Because ultimately it’s the government.

[quote]What about intellectual property? We are FORCED, by law, to purchase goods and services that might be more expensive and less effective, because our govt protects the rights of certain businesses/people to exclusively market a good or service.[/quote]

But you still have the choice to not purchase those products. You don’t have the buy Microsoft. What happened when people wanted a choice other than Microsoft? Linux popped up. Java. Even telephones, it used to be a monopoly, protected by the government. But now you have Skype, VOIP, even satellite and cell phones. The market finds a way and it does it through innovation. It gives you a choice, even choices that were previously constrained by the government.

[quote]What about limited liability that protects gamblers and speculators from responsibility when they cause great harm to innocent people?[/quote]

There are remedies to this. It’s called the judicial system. It’s not perfect. It sucks. But it’s the best system we’ve got.

[quote]Are you honestly going to tell me that we had a choice when all the bailouts (trillions of dollars, and we have yet to see all the damage!) were passed to protect — and grow! — the wealth of the robber barons who decimated our society?[/quote]

You know, it was the government who passed those things. They were the ones who decided to implement it. When the bank bailouts happened, many banks DID NOT WANT THEM. They were forced into it by the government. Now certainly there are many people who were to blame for the real estate bust, but many of them have suffered for it already. Many went out of business already.

[quote]No, we do not have a choice, and the elite are NOT held responsible for the damage they inflict on our society.[/quote]

If you’re talking about you and me personally not having a choice, well that’s the representative government system for you. Maybe you and me would not have voted for the bailouts and all that, but that’s why we voted for our representatives.

But that’s the problem, when people in the government overstep their bounds and start voting special treatment for their special interests and sell their influence, sell their power.

[quote]If “free-market” capitalism is such a Panacea, can you show us a single example of a “free market, capitalist” nation (without any social safety nets or public regulation/control over it’s natural resources and infrastructure, or any other form of “socialism”) that has performed better than its more “socialist” peers?[/quote]

Straw man argument. You assume I want an unregulated free market. I don’t. I don’t mind reasonable regulations, standards and structures. I believe in there being certain rules. Capitalism doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a social safety net.

But there are societies that have reasonable rules in place and they have very good economies. Hong Kong was one (before the Communist takeover). Capitalistically speaking, that was a panacea of business, but it still wasn’t perfect.

One of the sad facts of life is that there are certain personalities that are drawn to the public offices like Congressmen, President, and other political positions. That’s why you often see politicians with an entitlement mentality (see Charlie Rangel), or think that the rules don’t apply to them (Mark Sanford). The founding fathers knew this because they studied history and were students of humanity. As a result, it was necessary for them to structure a government that limited its power over its citizens. To limit abuse of power, a limited government was necessary.

Now certainly we are all humans. None of us are perfect. Businesses have abuses as well as successes. Governments have abuses as well as successes. However, because of the nature of government, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[surveyor]

[quote]But the government is supposed to be accountable to “We the People.” That’s what the founding fathers wanted.[/quote]

Very true. It would be nice if the people in the government followed that principle.

[quote]The “robber barons” are NOT accountable to the people, and they are only subject to the laws that they create for themselves! Who do you think is behind all the bills submitted to Congress that determine where money will go? Do you think it’s the empty-headed suits on Capitol Hill? I can assure you, the robber barons are behind the great majority of laws that control the flow of money, either in the form of taxation, or the regulations that FORCE us to use certain services in order to transact business (all under the guise of “protecting the consumer” when creating laws that require us to use “licensed” people/entities — who are almost always associated with a group of powerful lobbyists).[/quote]

Yes, but who allowed them to write those laws in the first place? The politicians in the government who peddle their influence and power into status, money. The ones who sell their power and sell out the people who they represent.

You want to blame companies for pursuing their self-interest, but you give the people in government a pass. Yes, companies can lobby, persuade, influence all they want to get the laws they want passed, but they aren’t the ones passing the laws. Who are you going to blame, the companies asking for the laws or the Congressmen who took money and can’t say no? Because ultimately it’s the government.

[quote]What about intellectual property? We are FORCED, by law, to purchase goods and services that might be more expensive and less effective, because our govt protects the rights of certain businesses/people to exclusively market a good or service.[/quote]

But you still have the choice to not purchase those products. You don’t have the buy Microsoft. What happened when people wanted a choice other than Microsoft? Linux popped up. Java. Even telephones, it used to be a monopoly, protected by the government. But now you have Skype, VOIP, even satellite and cell phones. The market finds a way and it does it through innovation. It gives you a choice, even choices that were previously constrained by the government.

[quote]What about limited liability that protects gamblers and speculators from responsibility when they cause great harm to innocent people?[/quote]

There are remedies to this. It’s called the judicial system. It’s not perfect. It sucks. But it’s the best system we’ve got.

[quote]Are you honestly going to tell me that we had a choice when all the bailouts (trillions of dollars, and we have yet to see all the damage!) were passed to protect — and grow! — the wealth of the robber barons who decimated our society?[/quote]

You know, it was the government who passed those things. They were the ones who decided to implement it. When the bank bailouts happened, many banks DID NOT WANT THEM. They were forced into it by the government. Now certainly there are many people who were to blame for the real estate bust, but many of them have suffered for it already. Many went out of business already.

[quote]No, we do not have a choice, and the elite are NOT held responsible for the damage they inflict on our society.[/quote]

If you’re talking about you and me personally not having a choice, well that’s the representative government system for you. Maybe you and me would not have voted for the bailouts and all that, but that’s why we voted for our representatives.

But that’s the problem, when people in the government overstep their bounds and start voting special treatment for their special interests and sell their influence, sell their power.

[quote]If “free-market” capitalism is such a Panacea, can you show us a single example of a “free market, capitalist” nation (without any social safety nets or public regulation/control over it’s natural resources and infrastructure, or any other form of “socialism”) that has performed better than its more “socialist” peers?[/quote]

Straw man argument. You assume I want an unregulated free market. I don’t. I don’t mind reasonable regulations, standards and structures. I believe in there being certain rules. Capitalism doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a social safety net.

But there are societies that have reasonable rules in place and they have very good economies. Hong Kong was one (before the Communist takeover). Capitalistically speaking, that was a panacea of business, but it still wasn’t perfect.

One of the sad facts of life is that there are certain personalities that are drawn to the public offices like Congressmen, President, and other political positions. That’s why you often see politicians with an entitlement mentality (see Charlie Rangel), or think that the rules don’t apply to them (Mark Sanford). The founding fathers knew this because they studied history and were students of humanity. As a result, it was necessary for them to structure a government that limited its power over its citizens. To limit abuse of power, a limited government was necessary.

Now certainly we are all humans. None of us are perfect. Businesses have abuses as well as successes. Governments have abuses as well as successes. However, because of the nature of government, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[surveyor]

[quote]But the government is supposed to be accountable to “We the People.” That’s what the founding fathers wanted.[/quote]

Very true. It would be nice if the people in the government followed that principle.

[quote]The “robber barons” are NOT accountable to the people, and they are only subject to the laws that they create for themselves! Who do you think is behind all the bills submitted to Congress that determine where money will go? Do you think it’s the empty-headed suits on Capitol Hill? I can assure you, the robber barons are behind the great majority of laws that control the flow of money, either in the form of taxation, or the regulations that FORCE us to use certain services in order to transact business (all under the guise of “protecting the consumer” when creating laws that require us to use “licensed” people/entities — who are almost always associated with a group of powerful lobbyists).[/quote]

Yes, but who allowed them to write those laws in the first place? The politicians in the government who peddle their influence and power into status, money. The ones who sell their power and sell out the people who they represent.

You want to blame companies for pursuing their self-interest, but you give the people in government a pass. Yes, companies can lobby, persuade, influence all they want to get the laws they want passed, but they aren’t the ones passing the laws. Who are you going to blame, the companies asking for the laws or the Congressmen who took money and can’t say no? Because ultimately it’s the government.

[quote]What about intellectual property? We are FORCED, by law, to purchase goods and services that might be more expensive and less effective, because our govt protects the rights of certain businesses/people to exclusively market a good or service.[/quote]

But you still have the choice to not purchase those products. You don’t have the buy Microsoft. What happened when people wanted a choice other than Microsoft? Linux popped up. Java. Even telephones, it used to be a monopoly, protected by the government. But now you have Skype, VOIP, even satellite and cell phones. The market finds a way and it does it through innovation. It gives you a choice, even choices that were previously constrained by the government.

[quote]What about limited liability that protects gamblers and speculators from responsibility when they cause great harm to innocent people?[/quote]

There are remedies to this. It’s called the judicial system. It’s not perfect. It sucks. But it’s the best system we’ve got.

[quote]Are you honestly going to tell me that we had a choice when all the bailouts (trillions of dollars, and we have yet to see all the damage!) were passed to protect — and grow! — the wealth of the robber barons who decimated our society?[/quote]

You know, it was the government who passed those things. They were the ones who decided to implement it. When the bank bailouts happened, many banks DID NOT WANT THEM. They were forced into it by the government. Now certainly there are many people who were to blame for the real estate bust, but many of them have suffered for it already. Many went out of business already.

[quote]No, we do not have a choice, and the elite are NOT held responsible for the damage they inflict on our society.[/quote]

If you’re talking about you and me personally not having a choice, well that’s the representative government system for you. Maybe you and me would not have voted for the bailouts and all that, but that’s why we voted for our representatives.

But that’s the problem, when people in the government overstep their bounds and start voting special treatment for their special interests and sell their influence, sell their power.

[quote]If “free-market” capitalism is such a Panacea, can you show us a single example of a “free market, capitalist” nation (without any social safety nets or public regulation/control over it’s natural resources and infrastructure, or any other form of “socialism”) that has performed better than its more “socialist” peers?[/quote]

Straw man argument. You assume I want an unregulated free market. I don’t. I don’t mind reasonable regulations, standards and structures. I believe in there being certain rules. Capitalism doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a social safety net.

But there are societies that have reasonable rules in place and they have very good economies. Hong Kong was one (before the Communist takeover). Capitalistically speaking, that was a panacea of business, but it still wasn’t perfect.

One of the sad facts of life is that there are certain personalities that are drawn to the public offices like Congressmen, President, and other political positions. That’s why you often see politicians with an entitlement mentality (see Charlie Rangel), or think that the rules don’t apply to them (Mark Sanford). The founding fathers knew this because they studied history and were students of humanity. As a result, it was necessary for them to structure a government that limited its power over its citizens. To limit abuse of power, a limited government was necessary.

Now certainly we are all humans. None of us are perfect. Businesses have abuses as well as successes. Governments have abuses as well as successes. However, because of the nature of government, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[surveyor]

[quote]But the government is supposed to be accountable to “We the People.” That’s what the founding fathers wanted.[/quote]

Very true. It would be nice if the people in the government followed that principle.

[quote]The “robber barons” are NOT accountable to the people, and they are only subject to the laws that they create for themselves! Who do you think is behind all the bills submitted to Congress that determine where money will go? Do you think it’s the empty-headed suits on Capitol Hill? I can assure you, the robber barons are behind the great majority of laws that control the flow of money, either in the form of taxation, or the regulations that FORCE us to use certain services in order to transact business (all under the guise of “protecting the consumer” when creating laws that require us to use “licensed” people/entities — who are almost always associated with a group of powerful lobbyists).[/quote]

Yes, but who allowed them to write those laws in the first place? The politicians in the government who peddle their influence and power into status, money. The ones who sell their power and sell out the people who they represent.

You want to blame companies for pursuing their self-interest, but you give the people in government a pass. Yes, companies can lobby, persuade, influence all they want to get the laws they want passed, but they aren’t the ones passing the laws. Who are you going to blame, the companies asking for the laws or the Congressmen who took money and can’t say no? Because ultimately it’s the government.

[quote]What about intellectual property? We are FORCED, by law, to purchase goods and services that might be more expensive and less effective, because our govt protects the rights of certain businesses/people to exclusively market a good or service.[/quote]

But you still have the choice to not purchase those products. You don’t have the buy Microsoft. What happened when people wanted a choice other than Microsoft? Linux popped up. Java. Even telephones, it used to be a monopoly, protected by the government. But now you have Skype, VOIP, even satellite and cell phones. The market finds a way and it does it through innovation. It gives you a choice, even choices that were previously constrained by the government.

[quote]What about limited liability that protects gamblers and speculators from responsibility when they cause great harm to innocent people?[/quote]

There are remedies to this. It’s called the judicial system. It’s not perfect. It sucks. But it’s the best system we’ve got.

[quote]Are you honestly going to tell me that we had a choice when all the bailouts (trillions of dollars, and we have yet to see all the damage!) were passed to protect — and grow! — the wealth of the robber barons who decimated our society?[/quote]

You know, it was the government who passed those things. They were the ones who decided to implement it. When the bank bailouts happened, many banks DID NOT WANT THEM. They were forced into it by the government. Now certainly there are many people who were to blame for the real estate bust, but many of them have suffered for it already. Many went out of business already.

[quote]No, we do not have a choice, and the elite are NOT held responsible for the damage they inflict on our society.[/quote]

If you’re talking about you and me personally not having a choice, well that’s the representative government system for you. Maybe you and me would not have voted for the bailouts and all that, but that’s why we voted for our representatives.

But that’s the problem, when people in the government overstep their bounds and start voting special treatment for their special interests and sell their influence, sell their power.

[quote]If “free-market” capitalism is such a Panacea, can you show us a single example of a “free market, capitalist” nation (without any social safety nets or public regulation/control over it’s natural resources and infrastructure, or any other form of “socialism”) that has performed better than its more “socialist” peers?[/quote]

Straw man argument. You assume I want an unregulated free market. I don’t. I don’t mind reasonable regulations, standards and structures. I believe in there being certain rules. Capitalism doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a social safety net.

But there are societies that have reasonable rules in place and they have very good economies. Hong Kong was one (before the Communist takeover). Capitalistically speaking, that was a panacea of business, but it still wasn’t perfect.

One of the sad facts of life is that there are certain personalities that are drawn to the public offices like Congressmen, President, and other political positions. That’s why you often see politicians with an entitlement mentality (see Charlie Rangel), or think that the rules don’t apply to them (Mark Sanford). The founding fathers knew this because they studied history and were students of humanity. As a result, it was necessary for them to structure a government that limited its power over its citizens. To limit abuse of power, a limited government was necessary.

Now certainly we are all humans. None of us are perfect. Businesses have abuses as well as successes. Governments have abuses as well as successes. However, because of the nature of government, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[patb]

[quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.

[patb]

[quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.

[patb]

[quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.

[patb]

[quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.

[patb]

[quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.

[an]

[quote=patb][quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.[/quote]
I wasn’t expecting to get any anyways, so I’ve done my kisses long ago. All this mean to me is, less of my money goes into a black hole where I’m not expecting any return from.

[an]

[quote=patb][quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.[/quote]
I wasn’t expecting to get any anyways, so I’ve done my kisses long ago. All this mean to me is, less of my money goes into a black hole where I’m not expecting any return from.

[an]

[quote=patb][quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.[/quote]
I wasn’t expecting to get any anyways, so I’ve done my kisses long ago. All this mean to me is, less of my money goes into a black hole where I’m not expecting any return from.

[an]

[quote=patb][quote=AN]You won’t hear me complaining. $ in my pocket is better than $ in their pockets. Especially if I earn that money and not them.[/quote]

bad news, what you did was kiss off your social security.[/quote]
I wasn’t expecting to get any anyways, so I’ve done my kisses long ago. All this mean to me is, less of my money goes into a black hole where I’m not expecting any return from.

[Author]

Posts