|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
this was written last year?! (Reply to this comment)
by jankp
It sounded like this year. I've heard the same stuff on NPR. Well said.
Jan
|
Dec 13 '04
1:08 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
You'll never know
|
Dec 29 '03
2:14 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
No kidding. That's my back yard.
You didn't set it, did you?
|
Dec 29 '03
1:10 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Hey jayboy, there's a major fire in Cleveland right now with deaths.
|
Dec 29 '03
1:02 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
Ginzo- Yes it IS,jay.The people have voted upon, elected into such governemnt for the people,by the people to provide guidelines,rules and regulations to prevent chaos,fraud,etc.
Maybe so, but only by ignoring the Constitution, which does not allow the Federal Government to do such things. Contrary to what they taught you in your government youth indoctrination camp, we don't have an "anything goes" government. We have rules and guidelines even government must follow - those rules are laid out very clearly in the US Constitution.
Face it Ginzo, you have no understanding of how this country was built. You were educated in a government school, weren't you? You are the perfect example of the failure of government schooling.
Look, Ginz. I will cease all arguments with you if you can explain to me, by citing the actual words from the Constitution, where the Feds get the authority to regulate private business, or provide for educational needs of people.
Do that, and I will change my profile page to read "I worship the ground Ginzo walks on! He is my Lord and Savior!" 100 times.
|
Dec 29 '03
12:41 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
Here goes jay off on another libertarian seperatist type rant.
Actually, No ginzo. Quite the opposite. I am all in favor of people working together. Unlike you, I reject the use of force, to compel people to live the way I think they should. You are simply a morally bankrupt ignoramus with no ethical compass.
Government works by one method alone. Force.
This you cannot deny.
|
Dec 29 '03
12:33 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Oh Good God!! Here goes jay off on another libertarian seperatist type rant.
Jay, I could dispute nearly every twisted thing you say below, but then again, I already have in many of my own comment sections that you invaded with your false political rehtoric.
For you to say that companies are free to do as they please without following government guidelines ,rules and regulations and to say that YOUR free market which would be free of these rules and regs, would NOT produce criminals and frauds that would hurt this country and it's people is extremely misleading of you to say. As is MOST of what you say and claim in your world.
Again, the government does not hold total control of the public schools in every way as you would mislead us into believing.
We have teachers,unions,pta's,school commities,local,national,local elected officials elected by the people who vote for changes.
Don't make me go there aaagain.
|
Dec 29 '03
12:17 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
"It is the responsibility of the government to help it’s people when things are not being met, especially the bare necessities like health care."-Thechuunt
"No, it is not. Even if it were, there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the Federal Government to supply such services."-jayboy
Ginzo- Yes it IS,jay.The people have voted upon, elected into such governemnt for the people,by the people to provide guidelines,rules and regulations to prevent chaos,fraud,etc.
Rules and regulations are a vital part of civility and survival of this nations people.
It provides necessary protection,as well.
Only the libertarians believe in a stripped down,no government,individual chaotic life.
We tried that already jay, in the old wild wild west days.
IT DOESN'T WORK.
Your twisted half-truths don't measure up.
|
Dec 29 '03
12:07 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
Of course regulation has it’s bad side and I never said that the government does a better job, but you seem to believe that the free market will bring the best out of the system.
For the most part, yes. It all comes down to incentives. Government fails at pretty much every thing it does. Because politicians and bureacrats are rarely held accountable for the damage they cause, there is no _real_ incentive to provide quality services. Private companies on the other hand, face real risks, either through financial loss or, if they are particularly reckless, jail time is the needs of consumers are not met. But hey...if it can be demonstrated that government provides something better, quicker, and more efficiently than private enterprise, I'd be glad to consider it as a proper solution.
What about health care? 42 million Americans are uninsured and this is thanks to the free market system.
Sorry, bud. Our health care system is anything but a free market system, and is rapidly deteriorating into outright socialism. Again..as far as costs are concerned, we find the hand of government jacking them up beyond all reasonable levels. First, we have licensure requirements and other laws, which restrict the ability for providers of health care services from entering the market (for example, midwives). Second, you have doctors who must hire scads of office personnel to simply fill out paperwork mandated by HMOs (which came about as a direct result of government legislation). Third, you have the FDA, which prevents lifesaving medicines from reaching desperately ill people, and then only after the manufacturer has spent hundreds of millions to get it approved. And lets not forget the war on medical marijuana, which makes it illegal for chronically ill people to use a simple roadside weed to alleviate their pain and suffering. (I guess Smithkline Beechem can't get a patent on that painkiller, so let's send scores of Uzi-toting Ninja-clad stormtroopers to break into some old lady's house, and haul her off in chains)
In my view this is not efficient management. And much of that money is spent on health problems that could have been preventable.
Amen..government management of the health care system is inefficient. And much of the money spent on problems was spent needlessly.
I agree with you on certain things and responsibility is one of them. It is the responsibility of the government to help it’s people when things are not being met, especially the bare necessities like health care.
No, it is not. Even if it were, there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the Federal Government to supply such services. When I say responsibility, I mean personal responsibility.
It would actually be cheaper to do preventative health care than to help those when the problem is already out of hand.
I agree here. We don't have a health care system...we have a disease care system. But unfortunately, the drug and medical lobby prefers it that way, and they have more political power than you or I. (And ultimately, every political program serves the interests of the politically most powerful, at the expense of everyone else).
However you seem to place all your faith in no system and somehow the market will find efficiencies on its own.
Well, it's not faith...it's looking at plain evidence. And it's not "no" system, its a free market system. And on what grounds do you have to say that the market doesn't have an incentive to find efficiency?
I’m not saying “I’m” the one that has the plan
Well, no, you're not. My point was simply that someone will be the final decision maker, and that won't be you or I. Furthermore, there is no basis to believe that the decision this person makes will be anything other than the arbitrary opinion of that one person.
but just as you point out the government’s failures I can point out the markets failures, (i.e., healthcare, Enron, mutual funds, et cetera).
Enron was a case of fraud, not "the free market". Besides, the free market punished that company alot quicker than government did. Also, many of Enron's activities came about because of the protection the got from the favors of politicians. And let's not forget that Enron's accoutnign practices are nothing when compared to the fraud committed by the crown jewel of the welfare state, Social Security.
The New Deal may have been a failure in your book but it took first steps in the right direction.
And what direction is that? Socialism? Fascism?
When you say that unemployment was higher in 1939 than in 1931 do you attribute this to the New Deal, if so why? I’ve heard various arguments regarding this such as crowding out, monetary constraints, and other theories.
I'll have to look up my source and get back to you. I read an article recently about the failure of the New Deal, and it had to do alot with the things you point out. FDR basically did everything he could to keep prices and wages high, which not only resulted in high inventories and high unemployment, but also prevented alot of teh necessary liquidation the recession needed to undergo.
But even now, in 1987 and the recent tech crash we are still unable to say why these things happen.
Sometime, if you are interested, go learn about the Austrian School of Economics, specifically the business cycle theory. A good site is www.mises.org. Basically, most of our problems come from the monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve and the arbitrary expansion of credit. In a nutshell, Al Greenspan cut interest rates below what is a realistic market rate. What this does is to discourage savings, while at the same time encourages borrowing to fund business investment. Because money is so "cheap", and cost of capital so low, investments that would otherwise not be sound appear to be potential money makers. (Pets Dot Com, anyone?) This can be sustained for a while (as long as the Fed can keep lowering rates), but eventually the market wakes up and realizes that all of this "malinvestment" is not in line with the consumer demand, both in structure and time-preference. The result is that this atrificially created "boom", turns to "bust" and we go into a recession, as the market readjusts to get back into line with a more rational structure.
Of course everything in hindsight is 20 / 20 but tell me something Jay, outline what “services” if any should be provided by the government in your opinion?
Although there are a few things I would rather they didn't do, I'd be happy if the government did only those things it is authorized to do. (Hint: Those enumerated powers can be found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).
What in your book are the bare necessities for your fellow human beings?
It's irrelevant to this discussion what the bare necessities are for my fellow human beings. We are discussing the role of government. However, if you're question should have read "what in your book are the bare necessities for government to provide to your fellow human beings?" I would answer with my mantra, "cops, courts, and roads"...(and even roads is an iffy one). All other desired goods and services are the responsibility of the private citizens who want to obtain them.
|
Dec 29 '03
10:47 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by thechuunt
Oh, you mean like practically every government school in the country? Well... If government wasn't driving up the costs of private education (where the providers have every incentive to deliver a quality product), then I should seek out a different source to educate myself. In times past, there were things like apprenticeships offered by various trades, which helped cultivate the labor pool. You don't see much of those nowadays, do you?
Of course regulation has it’s bad side and I never said that the government does a better job, but you seem to believe that the free market will bring the best out of the system. What about health care? 42 million Americans are uninsured and this is thanks to the free market system. In my view this is not efficient management. And much of that money is spent on health problems that could have been preventable. I agree with you on certain things and responsibility is one of them. It is the responsibility of the government to help it’s people when things are not being met, especially the bare necessities like health care. It would actually be cheaper to do preventative health care than to help those when the problem is already out of hand.
However you seem to place all your faith in no system and somehow the market will find efficiencies on its own. I’m not saying “I’m” the one that has the plan but just as you point out the government’s failures I can point out the markets failures, (i.e., healthcare, Enron, mutual funds, et cetera). The New Deal may have been a failure in your book but it took first steps in the right direction. When you say that unemployment was higher in 1939 than in 1931 do you attribute this to the New Deal, if so why? I’ve heard various arguments regarding this such as crowding out, monetary constraints, and other theories. But even now, in 1987 and the recent tech crash we are still unable to say why these things happen. Of course everything in hindsight is 20 / 20 but tell me something Jay, outline what “services” if any should be provided by the government in your opinion? What in your book are the bare necessities for your fellow human beings?
|
Dec 29 '03
9:02 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
Ginzo... Shut up. You don't know what you're talking about you cretin.
|
Dec 29 '03
8:45 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
I see both sides of the coin Jay. However in a society there needs to be order and government regulation, (i.e., The New Deal with the Great Depression).
I understand that. But there is a difference between "order" and "regimentation". A free market produces its own, spontaneous, and natural order. For example: look at the company you work for. Everyone has their specific jobs and roles they play. Every employee came together as a team, in order to benefit themselves and their customers. There was no politician who decided how each department should be organized, was there? And companies are always looking to improve their processes to become more efficient, which may require periodically changing around the established order.
And incidentally...the New Deal was an economic failure. Unemployment was higher in 1939 than it was in 1931.
I'm not saying that wealthy people didn't "earn" their money but would you agree that they could not have done that if the system did not have rules?
If by that you mean a rule of law which respects and protects property rights, then I would agree. But that is a far cry from saying the political/legal system caused people to get rich. It only laid the foundation, for enterprising individuals to make the most of.
I mean in a crude analogy, say I am a peasant, work for a nobleman, he pays me a minimum wage and I accept. Finally I get sick of the inequality and lets say I don't take it anymore and kill him; who steps in? The law, the government that's who.
Right...So because the government has a legitimate riole to play in prosecuting acts of violence, we need to turn over our entire lives to the discretion of bureacrats and politicians?
The system protects and is a necessity. Otherwise the rule is by the sword and the poor and largely, the middle class are becoming defenseless.
I agree. I have never said otherwise. I just want to make clear what we are talking about.
And in a more "civilized" society things get hidden in the wording...why do you think people with money get off while a poor person is sent to prison with little help for the same crime?
Well, nothing's perfect, after all. We are all human. But first, let's talk about what constitutes a crime. In my defintion, the only crimes are those that constitute violence and fraud. Economic "crimes" and other victimless "crimes" are not crimes at all. In any event, sure there is a disparity. OJ Simpson proved that.
Do you believe that this society is truly equal?
Define "equal". Under any defintion, my answer would be no, which is regrettable.
If you grow up on minimum wage, (about 750 take home a month) would YOU be able to survive?
Well...if government wasn't regulating everything to death, driving up prices, and limiting opportunity, I might. And even if I couldn't, then I best take enough responsibility for my situation to improve my earning potential.
How about if you have kids?
Again...it all comes down to responsibility. If I am foolish enought o have kids that I can't support, on what moral ground do I have to force others to pay for my reckless behavior.
What if the education in your area is defunct?
Oh, you mean like practically every government school in the country? Well... If government wasn't driving up the costs of private education (where the providers have every incentive to deliver a quality product), then I should seek out a different source to educate myself. In times past, there were things like apprenticeships offered by various trades, which helped cultivate the labor pool. You don't see much of those nowadays, do you?
Of course someone has to step in and will it be you? Maybe, but most won't and that's why there is a need for government.
To force people to behave properly? Who gets to define what is "proper"? You?
|
Dec 29 '03
8:44 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Can I just poke..... (Reply to this comment)
by criteeker
Ginzo...you're cool in my book. The simple-minded often insult when they can't debate. Take that doofus Gooberpyle and her LAME tacics. LOL Well, if it wasn't for her, you and I would never have crossed paths. This is me, buying you a beer! ^5 bro.
|
Dec 29 '03
3:36 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Can I just poke..... (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Couldn't agree more.I'd just like to see the choldish,reckless,personal insults disappear.
|
Dec 28 '03
8:06 am PST
|
|
Rockin review... (Reply to this comment)
by criteeker
GREAT REVIEW!!!! You are now on my WOT. As far a local government is concerned... Let's take Hummers (the vehicles) as an example. Farmers were granted a tax break on any vehicle over the 6000 pound gross vehicle weight class. Bush and his pals found a way to incorporate buying a HUMMER - as a tax break?????? Give me a HUGE break. I like Arnold and I like that he works for free, but that type of BS has to stop. Arnie owns THREE Hummers. WHY? The local government whines about the VLF fees? Stop giving out tax breaks to Hummer owners with that STUPID gas-guzzling vehicle that is NOTHING more than a "look what I got - do me" vehicle.
|
Dec 27 '03
3:43 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Can I just poke..... (Reply to this comment)
by thechuunt
I have nothing against anyone because of their political views et cetera. I like this site because people from both sides of the spectrum can give their honest opinions. Ginzo, I was looking at some of your comment sections, (i.e., the one where you were going to leave epinions) and felt down from what I read. Honestly, this site is nice because there are MANY sides to one issue. I really like that. I come on here and read opinions about products, whether people find them good or bad. That's the important thing. I'm glad to see you're still on and I hope that we all learn in the end. I think that's the ultimate goal of voicing your views on something. If I am wrong, so be it; I take responsibilty and am open to both sides of the discussion.
I am merely stating my view and if someone else has another view, I am willing to listen. Afterall, whoever is reading this comment has given me some of their very valuable time and I am very appreciative. Writing is cathartic but also enlightening. There are very intelligent people in this community and I am happy to share in the discussion.
Regards
|
Dec 26 '03
4:25 pm PST
|
|
Re: Can I just poke..... (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
In fact, go check out his fellow co-hort matthewn.
You wanna talk about a wacked mind.
See,how they talk to me in comment,in MY comment sections.
Funny thing, they both trust me yet hate me and slander my name.
Go figure.
|
Dec 26 '03
10:43 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
I've been over this SAME arguement with jay over and over and over. Don't waste your time. You can NOT change him or teach him. He will have a twisted lame answer for EVERYTHING.On top of that, he'll pretty much ignore whatever you say and reword it to his liking.
Good luck with your frustration with him that should be coming soon!!!
|
Dec 26 '03
10:39 am PST
|
|
Can I just poke..... (Reply to this comment)
by iluvbirds
my head into this conversation and say.....
Nice review.
Savanna Smiling:)
|
Dec 24 '03
4:14 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by thechuunt
I see both sides of the coin Jay. However in a society there needs to be order and government regulation, (i.e., The New Deal with the Great Depression). I'm not saying that wealthy people didn't "earn" their money but would you agree that they could not have done that if the system did not have rules? I mean in a crude analogy, say I am a peasant, work for a nobleman, he pays me a minimum wage and I accept. Finally I get sick of the inequality and lets say I don't take it anymore and kill him; who steps in? The law, the government that's who. The system protects and is a necessity. Otherwise the rule is by the sword and the poor and largely, the middle class are becoming defenseless.
And in a more "civilized" society things get hidden in the wording...why do you think people with money get off while a poor person is sent to prison with little help for the same crime? Do you believe that this society is truly equal? If you grow up on minimum wage, (about 750 take home a month) would YOU be able to survive? How about if you have kids? What if the education in your area is defunct? Of course someone has to step in and will it be you? Maybe, but most won't and that's why there is a need for government.
|
Dec 24 '03
12:15 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Jay somewhat agrees but if you ask him, he'd prefer a world that has every man for himself. No community support,individual libertaian chaos,no rules and regulations and he actually believes that the government TOTALLY controls and dictates the education system from the people and that the people have NO say
|
Dec 24 '03
9:23 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
I agree, but for different reasons.
The fact is, without a corresponding decrease in spending, tax cuts do nothing but shift the burden for financing big government onto different shoulders....either through debt accumulation, or inflation, or both. Each way comes with its own drawbacks. But the argument that cutting taxes will stimulate more economic activity, resulting in greater government revenue is sound.
I guess my question was directed at your comment about being "allowed" to earn money.
|
Dec 24 '03
6:35 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by thechuunt
Hi Jay:
Not socialist but I don't think the tax cuts came at a right time with our enormous deficits and such. Also, dividend cuts, tax restructing, SUV car right off, tend to favor one group in particular.
I think there needs to be a better balance.
|
Dec 23 '03
11:17 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
You are absolutely correct. They do pay the most but it is this system that gives them the ability to prosper so much.
But what's the alternative? A Centrally planned, socialist style economy?
|
Dec 22 '03
1:11 pm PST
|
|
P.S. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
The dollar has been falling recently and the Fed has done absolutely nothing to prevent it’s free fall.
That's because the Fed is designed to erode the value of the dollar through inflation.
Fact: Since 1913, when the Federal Reserve was established, the value of the dollar has eroded over 90%.
Inflation is a hidden tax political types like to use to siphon wealth from the middle and lower classes.
|
Dec 22 '03
1:10 pm PST
|
|
Re: .. (Reply to this comment)
by thechuunt
You are absolutely correct. They do pay the most but it is this system that gives them the ability to prosper so much. Giving them a tax break at this time, considering the war, record deficits, and other money issues, I feel was not appropriate. Thanks for your opinion and comment!
|
Dec 22 '03
1:09 pm PST
|
|
.. (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
People receive a $1,000 tax break while the upper echelons are able to deduct $100,000 due to new tax laws. The lower and middle classes become deceived because not many people bother to look at the new laws that affect them. They get a crumb while they let the wealthy feast.
Of course, you neglect to mention that it's the top income earners who pay the Lion's share of taxes in the first place, so by definition, they will always reap the most benefits.
|
Dec 22 '03
1:06 pm PST
|
|
|
|
