Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Liberalism- by P.E. Trudeau
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tahna Los: [QB] Let me have a crack on some of these comments. I will comment Omega's points since they challenge Tom's, and I will comment on both points of view accordingly. [i]"Did it ever occur to you that those companies support the GOP because the opposition is unfairly targeting them for destruction? Oh, no, when people with ANY ammount of money get involved with politics, they HAVE to be bribing people to change their views, instead of supporting those who's existing views help them."[/i] Point one for Omega. Yes, he DOES have a point. But whether or not whatever present government is targeting them for destruction is unfair can go both ways. Like say, I could charge them with criminal negligence, if they knew beforehand that they were putting out a product that could kill people, and enhancing that same product with more stuff that could keep people hooked on smoking, thus killing them even quicker. We're talking unethical and unmoral Business practices. And that does justify the destruction of a company. Morally, AND by law, that is. [i]"You assume that the powerful NEED to be confronted. The only "powerful" entity that has actual power over you is, guess what?, the GOVERNMENT. By your reasoning, we should give MORE power to an entity that can harm us, so that they can combat entities that can't. Illogical."[/i] Omega, for CHRIST sakes, please stop saying that the government is harming society. Government is supposed to act as the mediator between all classes of people, whether it is different races, different shapes, and different classes. I am hoping that you believe that the Government is not the only harmful entity out there. There are other businesses who sometimes may have more power than the government. To your credit, Omaga, these are the so-called companies who "support parties whose existing views help them", which sort-of nullifies my point. But when these big companies tell the government to do certain things which could possibly harm society as a whole (whether it be health, environment, or education), and when the government complies with their requests, over the overwhelming opposition of the common folk, THEN we have a problem here. Keep in mind that the last paragraph was based on ONTARIO politics. I will submit that I do not know if such things happen in the US. [i]"Marx couldn't have said it better himself. Add to that the fact that you both could stand a class in basic economics, and you have a lot in common with him. You see the rich as parasites on the "working class" (as if the majority of the upper class don't work, anyway). That analogy is nothing CLOSE to right."[/i] Yes the rich do work, to their credit. Now to back Tom's point, they "stay secure by downtrodding on the insecure". They do this by suggesting the government do things that, as I said in my last paragraph, are against the wishes against the common folk. These are the same people who maintain that the rich pay less tax than the poor. These are the same people who don't care when their paycheques are getting a fat bonus, while their lower class workers are receiving pink slips to increase their so-called botton line. These are the same people who don't see something wrong when the gap between the rich and the poor are growing to insurmountable heights, while they suggest that social services, designed to help the lower class, be cut beyond all recognition. These are the same people who suggest policies about making private universities and hospitals so that the rich can pay for first rate education and healthcare, while the lower class gets anything lower than substandard (AKA two-tiered Health and Education). Again, Ontario policies only. Don't bash me simply because I'm inferring to whatever chaos is happening up here. [i]"What good does it do ME to prevent someone else from getting ahead? Conversely, what good is it going to do me for the upper class to have the snot taxed out of them? It has no direct effect on ME. As for indirect effects, when the successful are punished, it discourages others from being successful. It kills initiative. If the owner doesn't make any amount of money any more, who pays the workers? Go get a good book on trickle-down theory. You could use one."[/i] That last two sentences is mudslinging. That being aside, its not being about punishing those who are successful. It's about "listen, I know you're making oodles of money, so could you spare some so we can give some other people a helping hand? That's what we're here for." Now I still say "helping hand", not "free cake". Taxes should NEVER be too high. Do that and you frighten away business. But then, Taxes should NEVER be too low. Do that, and you have no aids to help the less fortunate, no aids to fund hospitals, no aids to fund utilities, no aids to fund schools, and so on. If you ever heard of Walkerton, Ontario, then I suggest you look that up. Six people died from drinking contaminated water. The initial report suggested negligence, but there is also evidence that the local water commission did not have the necessary money to make repairs, tests, and inspections to the filtering equipment. That money used to be funded by the government, but went up in smoke when the Conservative government cut off all funding to pay for an ill-advised Tax cut. [i]"Did I call you a Marxist? I must have missed that... And since that pretty much wipes out the basis for the next two paragraphs..."[/i] Not necessarily, give him a benefit of a doubt. [i]"Of course there's not. A direct corrolation would mean that this is the case ALL THE TIME. As it is, there are maybe three percent of the wealthy who actually inherited it, and of course a VERY small fraction that got it dishonestly. But the vast majority earned it flat out."[/i] The point that Tom is trying to make is how to justify the bonus that a CEO gets while lower class workers are being laid off at the same time. If a company is trying to make profit, they must cut overhead. And that overhead must exist in all sectors of the business, NOT just the lower class workers. If you were working at a company, and they laid you off, and you find that the CEO gets a bonus the size of your annual salary, you'd be pissed off too, right? [i]"Of course I don't. But I don't think it's the government's job to DEFINE the public interest."[/i] Point, Omega. But the government is supposed to represent the public interest, they are supposed to walk a balance between all sorts of groups, between the rich and the poor. That was Trudeau's vision. Business groups may have hated him for doing that, but it appears that the majority of Canadians (aside from a few Quebeckers who were unfortunately involved in the FLQ crisis) didn't. [i]"And this interferes in democracy how? Oh, yeah, can't have someone supporting the cantidate that helps them, can we?"[/i] Again, point, Omega. I feel that there is nothing to comment here. As for Tom's last paragraph, drivel indeed. But I'd like to ask why Omega speaks so coldly about the government, and was there a past experience involved. I'm not inferring that there is, but Tom's remarks made me question the existence of one. *PHEW* finally finished....... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3