 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Ayn Rand
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 25 Jan 12 - 11:12 AM Skivee: "I love the depth and breadth of discussion on ms. Rand's work. Boy-oh-boy I never would have guessed that this thread would have lasted to 100." Well, some knuckleheads spent WAY too much time on stupid minutia....Here, here's a song, just for them.. The depth of the question GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 12 - 02:41 PM And some knuckleheads are so self-absorbed they wouldn't notice a Tyrannosaurus Rex until it bit 'em on the ass. Minutia indeed!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jan 12 - 03:58 PM Or for that matter, a Republican until it bit him on the ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jan 12 - 04:03 PM "do what you want, because there's no reason to do otherwise." That's the motto of the current Republican Party,and the first plank in their 2012 platform, ain't it? Exploitation R Us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Skivee Date: 25 Jan 12 - 04:06 PM Well, GFS, anybody who isn't enjoying this conversation is certainly welcome to walk away and do something else. landscape painting is reputed to be soothing While I didn't enjoy much of what I read by Rand, I found most of the comments of those that actually like her work to be quite worthy of reflection and comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 25 Jan 12 - 05:09 PM Below (somewhat related to this thread) is a copy of a post that one of my FB contacts shared.... as much as I dislike what it says, I am honest enough to admit I do see some logic and some truth in it. This does not mean I'm a convert to capitalism, as I will forever hold onto my beliefs in the humanitarism of socialism. I also am aware that my personal views are utopian in nature. But I do recognize the fault in humans (poor and rich) that greed, jealousy, egotism distrust, lust for power, clannishness of the classes do overtake all humane elements (sad to say). An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all). After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that. Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections. These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Deckman Date: 25 Jan 12 - 05:41 PM number 6 ... I find your posting (above) very interesting. I wonder what you would make of this true story ... 100 years ago, when I was younger, I taught beginning guitar classes at my local community college. I did this for five years and I also helped to put on some three day folk festivals. It was fun, I had classes with grandparents and their grandchildren in the same class. This local interest in guitar, and folk music, caught on and hoots, concerts, etc., started popping up. This was between 1974 and 1979. As my class, "beginning guitar", was an elective, on the first night of each class, I asked who in this class was taking it "for credit." To those that raised their hands, I asked them to speak with me after class. I then told them that, because they were taking it "for credit", their grade would be an "A". Everyone else got something less. The class was very happy when the news leaked out. And, I didn't hear any complaints from the administration! I haven't remembered that story until I read this thread again! bob(deckman)nelson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: DMcG Date: 25 Jan 12 - 05:58 PM That merely demonstrates that not all economists understand political systems or logic. Who is suggesting no differential at all in salaries? If he (or she) wants to argue about the effect of different ratios of top 5%:median salries, do so, but don't be naïve enough to insist on a 1:1 as the basis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Deckman Date: 25 Jan 12 - 06:26 PM DMcG ... a question: Why shouldn't a 1:1 ratio be the basis? bob(dekman)nelson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: DMcG Date: 25 Jan 12 - 06:39 PM Communism, at least theoretically, may claim that everyone should have the same salary. But I know of no mainstream political group that would call themselves socialist that would suggest the ratio of top salaries to the median should be restricted to, say 10:1 never mind 1:1. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: DMcG Date: 25 Jan 12 - 06:42 PM ... And I've certainly not heard Obama say it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 06:53 PM This entire idea of everyone making the same amount of money is nothin' but right wing horse shit... No one on the left has come within a gazillion miles of suggesting that... Horse shit is horse shit... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 12 - 06:53 PM Number 6, these are all the kind of arguments that Ayn Rand put forth. And they all sound very glib. But they are simplistic. And wrong. First of all, one is making an unwarranted and prejudicial leap of logic to use an expression like "Obama's socialism." This makes all kinds of assumptions without substantiation. There is a big difference between earning an A in class on one's own merit, and obtaining a huge wad of money from others by offering loans they may need (mortgages, for example), bamboozle them into accepting usurious rates that will have them paying out four or five times the value of the house, and then, if they get into financial straits, taking the house away from them and keeping the money they've already paid in. When those who "earn" the high grades do so by stealing them from the students who have to struggle—that's not anywhere near analogous to the described classroom situation. I really hear Ayn Rand talking here! #### 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. No, but you can even things out so that one portion of the population is not living in abject poverty while the other has more wealth than they can spend in dozens of lifetimes and are living in lavish luxury. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. Not necessarily. I am receiving a regular monthly Social Security check. I paid into the system during my working years, and that money is mine. It's owed to me. That was the deal!! But there are those who SAY that things like Social Security are unearned and undeserved government largess. By the way, banks and financial institutions call that an "annuity." They think it's fine when they do it. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. True. Such as, say, building and maintaining public roads, bridges, infrastructure in general, maintaining police and fire departments for the protection of citizens, maintaining a military for protection from external enemies...... Taxes are the dues you pay to live in a civilized society. And it's only right that those who benefit the most should pay the most. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! True. But the overall wealth remains the same. 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. This simply doesn't happen, nor will it ever. It is an extremely rare person who lacks the ambition to "make it" in the real world and is willing to wait for others to take care of him. In fact, it's frequently more likely that the kid who is born in a mansion will be content to live off papa's dough than to do something to actually create wealth. This classroom example is another "John Carter on Barsoom" example. It makes a good story, and both Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan loved that kind of thing. Remember Reagan's example of the "welfare queen?" He went on about how she was working the system and living in the lap of luxury from her welfare checks, and it turned out after considerable investigation, that she was a figment of Reagan's imagination. No such person. Nor could it have happened. But a lot of Republicans bought it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 07:06 PM Public Education: Socialism Roads: Socialism Police: Socialism Parks: Socialism Fire departments: Socialism Defense: Socialism Sewage treatment plants: Socialism City water: Socialism Airports: Socialism Stadiums: Socialism Sidewalks: Socialism Dams and levies: Socialism Postal Service: Socialism I mean, let's get real... Every industrialized country on the planet and many that aren't are socialistic countries... So for folks to accuse Obama as being a "socialists" is laughable... Where it may make folks feel all warm and fuzzy it also makes them either liars or morons... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 25 Jan 12 - 07:54 PM I knew that Obama thing mentioned in that post of mine would throw it all off. Let's don't get hung up on Obama, and let's just leave him out of the equation. Anyway, Obama's socialism is far from a being socialist .... That post of mine relates (in very simplistic terms) to Ayn Rand's philosophy, and yes in part (in all honesty) it does make some sense. let's face it. Arrogance, distrust, greed (for money and/or power) are the bane of human existence. That is why capitalism (Ayn Rand) and socialism (Karl Marx) will never succeed. Bobert ...that list of yours is not socialism at all .... it's all part and parcel of any government albeit liberal, or conservative. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 08:04 PM No, it's all socialism whereas the general public owns a portion of those things, though their ineterest may be very small... Do not confuse economic and political systems... Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 25 Jan 12 - 08:13 PM I don't understand why people get so upset, and yes angry over the writings of Ayn Rand, or on the other side of the spectrum Karl Marx. There is nothing to be frightened of. What does concern me more than any of the writings of these two are the human elements that regardless of political philosophy overrides any humane treatment and basic rights of all humans. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 25 Jan 12 - 08:17 PM ok ... Bobert ...that list of yours is not socialism at all .... it's all part and parcel of any government albeit liberal, or conservative and either of their economic principles. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 08:26 PM Define socialism, bill... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 25 Jan 12 - 08:45 PM to make it easy I scammed this off of The Fee Dictionary .... 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 08:55 PM Well, bill... If you just take the wiki definition which includes: 1. social OWNership and 2. cooperative management of the economy ...then the US, as well as most industrialized countries fall into those categories... Who OWNS all the things I listed above??? The US economy runs on an infrastructure managed by whom??? Get it??? Ain't rocket science here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 25 Jan 12 - 09:07 PM Geeesh Bobert .... I was keeping it simple and to the point ....below is the 3 first paragraphs on Wiki .... which pretty well defines what the Free Dictionary defined it as. What you listed above are the basic principles of any democratic and yes un-democratic government adheres to .... you forgot to add the one point where it's the government job to ensure the trains run on time .... ;-) Anyway here's the first 3 paragraphs from Wiki if anyone want to take the tiem to read. Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4] A socialist economic system would consist of an organization of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[5][6] Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution. As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy.[7] In contrast, anarchism and libertarian socialism propose direct worker's control of the means of production and oppose the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 09:17 PM Well, if one hates Obama then, yeah, you take the "collective ownership" of everything... Mean of production... Air... Gravity, Etc... Problem is that nothing these days is *pure*... What we have are hybrids of this and that... One could argue that China is a "communist" country, meaning that everything in controlled by the government but, in reality, China is a hybrid, too... There are "flaming capitalists" operating in not only China but Russia... Sweden, thought to be a "socialist" country is highly capitalistic... Let's get real here, bill... There are no "pure" economies... Even Cuba has recently allowed people to own businesses... Is Cuba a capitalist country??? Bottom line??? We are all hybrids... The US is very much socialistic when it comes to public ownership of lots of stuff (see list above) and very much a capitalist country and lots of stuff in between... To argue differently is to turn ones back on the real world... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 09:31 PM BTW, in Ayn Rand's world everything would be privatized... Little Suzie and her dog, Spot, riding her trike down the sidewalk in front of her house would be billed to Little Suzie's parents thru a little chip in Little Suzie that deducts money from Little Suzie's parents account every time that Little Suzie rides her bike down that sidewalk in front of her house... Ayn Rands says, "Tough shit... You should have bought that sidewalk rather than let Boss Hog Sidewalks, Inc. from buying it..." That is the Any Rand world... Everything is owned by some person or corporation and the rest of the world are renters... Only the rich own... Everyone else rents... How is this all that different from slavery??? Guess who is buying all these foreclosures??? Give up??? Rich people and they are renting them back to their new slave class... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Skivee Date: 25 Jan 12 - 10:06 PM Bobert, ol' pal, I think you have it all wrong. We's socialist thro8ugh and through. Could you imagine an Merica where Ms. Rand's philosophies prevail. Somebody who doesn't pay the fire department would have to watch their home burn while the firemen laughed,business interests would write laws, and the cops would have given those Occupy New York punks a good whacking with nightsticks and pepper spray. I mean, hey, there's just no chance that crap like that would happen in the good 'ol'USofA, because...ah...hang a sec... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 10:11 PM You be da' man, Skivz... I mean, complete pinko commie... I bet you write left handed... If not, you've enjoyed too many left hand cigarettes... That's the way I see it... But then again these Costco glasses ain't all that good... Cheap, but not all that accurate... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 25 Jan 12 - 11:04 PM geeezuz H. ...... I never knew it as this ..... United Socialist States of America ..... great idea for a song ... lemme see now... yes .... back in the USSA, you don't know how lucky your are boy (to be sung along to the tune of Chuck Berry's surfin U.S.A) ... ok, but now on the serious side .... us Canucks better be careful ....having a big socialist country sitting right on our doorstep ....whew wiLLiam ..... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 11:10 PM Yeah, that's about it, bill... You do have a big socialist state below you... But you have nothing to fear... Europe is socialist... China is... Russia is... Pick a country and you'll find socialism... Welcome to the real world... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 25 Jan 12 - 11:14 PM ..... I've been on the Madcat too long, and too much for one day .... think I'll turn off the old puter and get back to the real world. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:50 AM From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 12 - 07:06 PM Public Education: Socialism Roads: Socialism Police: Socialism Parks: Socialism Fire departments: Socialism Defense: Socialism Sewage treatment plants: Socialism City water: Socialism Airports: Socialism Stadiums: Socialism Sidewalks: Socialism Dams and levies: Socialism Postal Service: Socialism Though, that is true... .................and too much of it seems to be the hope of MANY..and is What? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: DMcG Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:45 AM . The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. True. Such as, say, building and maintaining public roads, bridges, infrastructure in general, ... I'd not even go so far as 'true'. If we simply substituted 'the market' for 'the government', we'd get to 'The market cannot give to anybody anything that the market does not first take from somebody else.' Is that also true? If it is, then there can be no growth, which would be an odd stance for an economist. Otherwise, adapting Margeret Thatcher's famous (mis)quote that there is no such thing as society, then there is no such thing as the market: there are only market-traders. Then you need to come up with an explanation why one particular trader, the government, is at a unique disadvantage to other traders whereby they all have the means to conjure something out of nothing but it is inherently impossible for a government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:59 AM So, are you saying that people are governed by what they buy?..or what they want?..whether it be a bigger government?...bigger market??...or bigger 'wants'??......'What's in your wallet?' GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:39 AM Exactly, DMcG... And "the market" has finally attained what it has wanted for a long time: complete control of the government... It has been it's goal going back to FDR and turned the corner in the 80s when it partnered with the Reagan administration to bust unions... Since then "the market" has been in the driver's seat and the working class just indentured slaves with no parole date, juts death... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 26 Jan 12 - 09:47 AM "And "the market" has finally attained what it has wanted for a long time: complete control of the government." "Since then "the market" has been in the driver's seat and the working class just indentured slaves " Bobert .... you make statements such as those and then you previously declared the US is a socialist state. In a Capitalist economic system the market (means of production, money/captial) is controlled by private business and let's face it these days private business are $Big$ corporations. I agree, in the U.S. these corporations have the government serving them (definately not the people). The profits flow up to the shareholders and a little, little bit trickles down to the workers, the indentured slaves as you say. Under capitalism everyone works for their own wealth and you can say their own welfare. In a Socialist economic system the market (means of production money/capital) is controlled or owned by the government were everyone works for wealth that is in turn distributed by the government to the workers. You get the drift. I certainly would not believe that Obama would go for that. Just because the government controls the post office, controls road repairs, fire and police departments airports and ensuring trains run on time does not constitute the country being 'socialist'. You btw mention education .... in a socialist state university education would be free .... you certainly don't see that in the U.S. Socialist countries ... there a very few and have been very few ... man's obsession with greed and lust for power probably has been to blame for that. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 12 - 10:17 AM Wrong, Bill... I never called the US a "socialist state"... What have have said - over and over, BTW - is that the US, like every other country, is a hybrid state... Every country has some level of socialism and every country has some level of capitalism... It the mix that makes them different... There is no such thing as a a "socialist state" or a "capitalist state", for that matter... The problem here is that the Republican party in particular has done a masterful job with their PR and demonized words - as if these words were "absolutes* - and once demonized these words take o a life of their own and can be used as weapons... Rather than accept the reality that all states are hybrids the Republicans use their "black 'n white", "good 'n evil" demonetization saying that Obama is a "socialist" knowing that they have carefully laid groundwork with their massive PR that will scare people... A "socialist"??? Horrors... Masses running thru the streets like from some 60's Japanese horror movie... One request, bill, por favor... If you are going to debate/discuss please por favor don't misquote me and then argue with me using stuff that I haven't written... That is intellectually dishonest... Gotta go... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 26 Jan 12 - 10:19 AM ... oh and I should mention that list of yours are services provided by federal and local governments that are paid for by the hard troden workers via taxes, such as sales tax and income tax taken out of their ever shrinking pay checks .... the wealthy corporate barons pay little when it comes to income tax .... yup, definately not socialism. Smells more like capitalism to me. The U.S. is so far off the radar when it comes decent health care, care for the old, care for the young that it cannot even call itself a social welfare state. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 12 - 10:48 AM We agree on that... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 26 Jan 12 - 11:45 AM Bobert I think we agree on pretty well everything .... my problem is understanding (and it's probably the difference of our interpretation of socialism) the deep fear many Americans have on a government providing adequate care on it's citizens ... i.e. healthcare, good education, decent care for all it's people ... what some may call socialist benefits, and which I call just providing the basic humane rights on which all people require and deserve. wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:20 PM Yup, that has been my point all along, bill... The right uses "socialism" as a scare word against anything that our government might do that provides the population with the basic needs... By pointing out to them that there are many things our government does that might be considered socialistic, including bailing out Wall Street, we defuse their scare tactics... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM Don't have time to cuss and discuss at the moment, but I want to make this observation: I have never considered myself to be a socialist (note lower-case "s"), but the more I look at such things as surveys of which countries in the world have the happiest, most contented citizens, they all turn out to be ones that are heavily socialistic. Free (government supported, tax financed) education, including college, good quality free health care, care for the elderly and disabled, many other things, along with limits on how many hours someone can be required to work, mandated vacations (so many weeks per year), and all kinds of other benefits. Yes, their taxes are high and they bitch about that, but when pressed on the matter they wouldn't change a thing! The Scandinavian countries in general and a couple of others. Last I read, Denmark tops the "contented citizens index." Americans have tried to turn "socialism" into a swear-word. Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, and Finns just smile and shake their heads. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Deckman Date: 26 Jan 12 - 06:19 PM Don ... With great respect ... because you KNOW just how much I love and respect you ... I'd suggest a slight change to your last posting. You said; "Americans have tried to turn socialism into a swear word ..." I would respectfully suggest that it is NOT Americans doing that ... it's those %&^^*(%^$%# republicans! bob(deckman)nelson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:19 PM Yup!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:38 PM Yup!!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: number 6 Date: 26 Jan 12 - 09:37 PM who are the %&^^*%^$%# republicans may I dare ask ..... ;-) wiLLiam |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Deckman Date: 26 Jan 12 - 09:47 PM ANY AND ALL republicans ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 12 - 09:52 PM Yeah, seems that all of them are willing to let 1/2 of the population fall into poverty... Tough shit... The Charlotte Observer reported in September that 1/2 of American families live at 125% of the official (ha) poverty rate or less... Do the math... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:37 AM "I don't understand why people get so upset, and yes angry over the writings of Ayn Rand," I'm not mad that Rand wrote her horseshit. I'm mad because the Republicans elect people naive and stupid enough to believe it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Jan 12 - 01:51 AM bILL Your example assumes that the only reason that the students are there is for grades. It is not realistic. some students, probably many students would study to learn. They would also go to the administration of the school for not rewarding their work and and for lying about the President. 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. In the 50's we had the highest taxes in history and the most prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. Horse shit. Society pays for poor people one way or another. Less welfare, more prisons, also, the money the poor people receive comes back into the economy and eventually back to government coffers. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. Of course it can. it can print money. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! Of course you can. You cannot multiply wealth with tax break which rich people use to buy Italian cars and invest in China. 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. I know a lot of people who have used Unemployment Insurance and welfare in Canada and a few here. Almost none would not have preferred to work. But what Obama wants to do is take the taxes and invest the way Eisenhower invested in the highway system. That is not socialism. It is conservative capitalism. We need to compete with China and Europe. If we don't if we just give tax breaks where much of the investment gets exported, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Jan 12 - 02:32 AM We have a capitalist/socialist form of government, so to speak. The social programs, enumerated by Bobert, are, or should be, to maintain the infrastructure, and provide government services. Fine. However, if everything were government run, and owned, where would the money come from to pay for all this? Taxes?..From who?...The government owned and run system, who gets their revenues from borrowing????..and the interest comes from where?..more borrowing?? Now if capitalism goes berserk, where 'anything for a buck' means screwing people around, such as we have seen, and the bankers and Wall Street crowd, make their money, from transferring funds, from here to there, and a profit is gleaned every time it passes through their hands, NOTHING is produced, and no wealth is generated. Just money passing around! To argue one side, over the other, to where things get out of balance, lends itself to the two extremes 'duking' it out, and begins a remedial cycle of one side trying to 'fix' the damage from the other side of the extreme.....and remember, every paycheck, written by the government, comes from BORROWED money..and as it is now, our collected tax money only pays the interest for that BORROWED money. Either way, the productivity, of a nation, is being squelched and the people hurt.....and by the way, WHO is arranging this borrowing and lending??.......................capitalists!....and that system is corrupted...affecting the whole. ...and Bobert, who has just released a CD, FOR MONEY, should get that money for his efforts. He could always share all his revenues to be divided to all the other participants of Mudcat, who are down on their finances, or to Mudcat itself, for providing the 'infrastructure' to advertize his product....I mean if it was purely 'socialistic'.....but in practice, I think he would object...the same way people also object, and fear the notion that all their creativity, and productiveness should be forcibly taken from them, and re-distributed...with NO say as to who and why. Nor would he be too happy to have all his 'profits' gleaned from him, by greedy 'middlemen', who would make more than he, as the artist who WORKED for years, with his talent to produce his music. That, my dearly beloved, is just common sense... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ayn Rand From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 12 - 07:31 PM No country on Earth has a government that owns and runs everything, China, Russia, Cuba included... B~ |
