 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Actually the whole idea of labeling people one thing or another is misleading. When I rail against liberals I must say that I really do not know any who fit the sterotype (except for some who post here). A true liberal should be thought of as a kind hearted person who wants to share the world's resources with the less fortunate.
On the other hand a true conservative is one who wants to conserve things that have been proven to work to accomplish justice and opportunity for everyone. It should be remembered that it was conservatives who have fed and clothed the poor for centuries. They did and still do have compassion for less fortunate people just like the true liberal does. The difference really is the methods used to accomplish the same end. One side would compell the other would do it freely.
Of course now everything is twisted. The conservatives are viewed as greedy businessmen and the liberals are viewed as elitist know-it-alls who think they have the wisdom to rule the world and distribute other peoples resources. I belong to neither group and most of my liberal friends do not either. Too bad that jerks have taken these labels so that real compassionate conservatives and liberals are at each other's throats. |
Well said, Lincoln. This liberal agrees 100%.
Don't let it go to your head.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
All I want is free, or extremely low cost health-care and education. I also think that profiteering shouldn't run rampant in the energy industry. Don't think that I want extremely high progressive taxes, or the state taking property. I don't. I just look at the current situation in the US, and I think that corporate America is profiting off of some industries where profits should take a backseat to safety, health, and the general welfare of people.
The number thing that I would be for, is the creation of non-profit drug companies that would provide medical supplies and low cost drugs to people and hospitals. Drug companies are taking money left and right from the sick and needy.
The second thing that I would like to see done is more government intervention in the energy industry. If Reagan hadn't de-regulated things, Enron would have never even existed, let alone committed such a heinous act of greed. Enron's only function was buying energy from power plants, raising the price, and then selling it to consumers. They didn't produce one watt, one BTU of energy. They didn't improve its efficiency, or make it cleaner and less polluting. They simply raised the price to make money.
I think that certain industries could be almost laissez faire. Luxury goods, etc. Basically, things that people don't need to survive.
Education is another area where corporations should not be allowed to profit.
EDIT: Government as we know it is just a swollen bureaucracy. I sure as hell don't want some bureaucrat in charge of things. The problem in this country is that we elect politicians, bureaucrats, and greedy CEO's when we need leaders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Fez, the only "good" thing (and I use that term loosely) that came from de-regulation of the energy market was that Enron type companies made money. And they made that money at the expense of consumers. So I ask you... is it better that consumers have more money, or energy trading corporations?
Second... public schools in the United States are funded by tax-payer money. I would suggest the creation of non-profit corporation(s) that would serve as publishers, suppliers, and be responsible for hiring and maintaining a high standard for teachers. All things being equal, this would lower costs. After that is done, I would lower property taxes and pass the savings on to the tax payer. Consumers have more money.
As for health care. I would do the same non-profit thing for drug companies and medical suppliers. Which would drastically reduce costs across the board. Did you know that, for instance, companies routinely have profit margins of 2,000% on medical supplies? And drug companies are just plain evil. There is more than enough info out there. All things being equal, you lower the cost of health care to the consumer based on the savings. Consumer have more money.
With the combined savings from just those two industries, consumers would save enough money to be able to buy more. This would strengthen the economy. The only loser(s) in all of this are the CEO's and executives that won't be getting huge bonuses and outrageous salaries from these non-profit entities. You could even pay employees who work for these companies slightly more and still have a susbstantial savings for the consumer.
This is more of an indirect way of re-distributing wealth down to the lower classes. But keep in mind, that most of this wealth would be put back into the economy in the form of luxury goods.
Sure, my model is little more than scratchings on a napkin. But the basic concepts are sound and could be implemented rather easily. What, in particular, do you disagree with here Fez?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-08-2002 06:54
aw I missed Fez's post, darn.... 
|