 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Infact I have some liberal elements in my social beliefs... if I didn't meet some of you people here I would still hold my old beliefs. I am now tolerant towards gays and am no longer a McCarthyist. |
Oh good those two thoughts went so well together.
McCarthy was sleaziest looking politician I have ever seen. And sitting at the elbow of Senator Sleaze at the Army-McCarthy hearings was a smaller younger sleaze ball. Smarter too. Roy Cohn, gay basher extraordinaire who took Senate Pages to bed. Male Senate pages only. After selling out everyone he could he then went on to sleaze his way to wealth by defending Mafia members.
The only thing sleazier looking than McCarthy and Roy Cohn at work was McCarthy's speach after he was raked over the coals by Eisenhower. Slime, sleaze and nervous sweat all at once. Its a wonder the creature was ever elected. I figure he must have been able to look more honest in person than he did on TV.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
leftover_crack
|
|
Most Idiotic assertion of Liberals
1) Everyone is who is not a white heterosexual male is "oppressed" somehow (im a white heterosexual. I feel oppressed by Liberal PC garbage)
On the other side
1) Everyone who doesnt have a job is a lazy bum who doesnt deserve to eat or there is somthing wrong with him. (Im not lazy I work hard as hell. I dont have a job cause nobody wants to hire me. I try, try, and try...more of the same"Well get back to you")
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Sure...
quote:
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Of course you don't think social redistribution is good. Your parents have money and you never need to worry about from where you get your next meal. |
And, in reverse, of course poor people favor social redistribution. They see all the money more well off people have, and they get jealous and greedy. They decide there should be a legalized method of theft in place. And then they institute such a method.
And that's why I don't like democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
But David, on the flipside, look at how the wealthy make much of their money. I'm not for complete wealth distribution. I simply think that in certain areas like health care, energy, education, and general welfare (job assistance, etc) shouldn't be an area of the economy in which people should be allowed to profit.
Look, Bill Gates, for instance, made his wealth selling an operating system for computers. Do I think some of his business practices have hampered competition? Yes. Should the company be broken up? No. Should he be taxed any higher than he is now? No.
If some guy makes a billion dollars selling some consumer good. He deserves every penny that he makes (past taxes of course). And don't argue against the principle of taxing, especially because it's in the Bible (which you say you cherish as your ultimate source of law and morality). But putting aside Enron's accounting practices, the company itself was based on an unethical principle: energy trading... Energy trading is wrong. Inflating the price of energy for profits is wrong. Why? Because people rely on energy to live. This is the basis for my opinions on education, health care, and energy.
Any time that a sector or industry reaches a point when demand becomes ultimate, I think that capitalism should take a backseat to the need of the people. Not entirely in some instances, like the automobile industry or telecom industry, but definitely in the case of health care, education, and energy.
I see no problem with a laissez faire system of capitalism in consumer goods. Why? Because people don't need designer clothes, huge TV's, video games, computers, jewelery, etc. Supply and demand should dictate prices and the flow of those goods.
But I find it inherently wrong and evil that companies will charge outrageous prices and increase profit margins to obscene levels when, in many cases, people's lives depend on those products.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
But David, on the flipside, look at how the wealthy make much of their money. I'm not for complete wealth distribution. I simply think that in certain areas like health care, energy, education, and general welfare (job assistance, etc) shouldn't be an area of the economy in which people should be allowed to profit. |
Doctors go to school for years, and on average are smarter than the average person. Why shouldn't they make more money than the rest of us? Or another example, energy companies - they provide a service everyone needs, and they compete with each other in terms of price. Why should they be penalized?
I see no reason to penalize someone just because they make more money than I do. It's immoral.
quote:
And don't argue against the principle of taxing, especially because it's in the Bible (which you say you cherish as your ultimate source of law and morality). |
Actually I believe in keeping religion and government totally separate. What I believe about God has no effect on what I believe is right and wrong in making laws.
quote:
Energy trading is wrong. Inflating the price of energy for profits is wrong. Why? Because people rely on energy to live. |
So? And in any case, people can live without energy - go back 150 years, before electricity. People didn't die as soon as they were born because of a lack of electric lights. They used candles or sunlight or fire. But, new technology came along, as did people who were able to utilize it to provide a service, provide convenience. I see no reason these people don't deserve every penny they make.
quote:
Any time that a sector or industry reaches a point when demand becomes ultimate, I think that capitalism should take a backseat to the need of the people. |
What exactly do you mean when you say the "need of the people"?
What you are saying is, basically, that one group should be forced to give up their property - robbing them, essentially - in order to make things more convenient for another (larger) group.
quote:
But I find it inherently wrong and evil that companies will charge outrageous prices and increase profit margins to obscene levels when, in many cases, people's lives depend on those products. |
Could you operate an EKG machine? Could you perform open heart surgery? No? I didn't think so. Obviously it takes a special level of skill to do things like this, and people had to go to school for years in order to achieve this level of proficiency. They deserve every penny they make.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
But I also am against the practices of real estate in the US. With a 20 year mortgage, you often pay a total of ten times the value of your land. Interest rates should be much, much lower. |
The simple solution there is to not borrow money - pay cash for everything.
You may find that inconvenient, but banks also find it inconvenient when people default on loans. They can't just hand out free money and say "pay me back when you get a chance".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
#1 I'm not talking about doctors and nurses making money. I'm talking about the drug companies and medical suppliers that routinely have 2,000% profit margins on drugs and medical equipment that is essential to peoples' lives. I think that making money needs to take a backseat to saving lives. But then again, we all know how much you seem to value human life in regard to gun control 
#2 I have no problem with people borrowing money. I have a problem with the way interest is calculated. I think that there should be a flat interest rate that is applied to the total amount of money paid to cover a mortgage.
For instance, paying ten times the amount of the value of your house seems wrong to me... doesn't it seem wrong to you?
I've got no problem with credit card interest. If you spend beyond your means, you deserve being in debt.
Fez, think outside the box. If homeowners can pay off a home loan in five years without yearly compounded interest, then they have more money to buy consumer goods. This = BIGGER ECONOMY, higher productivity, and a more efficient economy. IMO, any wealth that sits in the pockets of the CEO's of investment banking companies is money that could be in the economy, working for the people.
Don't worry guys, once you take some economics courses and actually learn about the flow of money, or become actual homeowners yourselves, you'll understand my points better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
I'm talking about the drug companies and medical suppliers that routinely have 2,000% profit margins on drugs and medical equipment that is essential to peoples' lives. |
Again, what's wrong with this? Nothing in life is free, and some things cost more than others. Business is about making money, and prescription drugs, for example, are something that people have to buy. I guess you're option is to make your own, or not buy them, but I see nothing inherently wrong with a 2000% profit margin, or even a 20000% one.
quote:
For instance, paying ten times the amount of the value of your house seems wrong to me... doesn't it seem wrong to you? |
No. Again, if you don't want to face these interest rates, don't borrow money.
One thing you have to realize, too, is that banking is a business. Banks are in business not only to save YOUR money, but to make money of their own. This is primarily done through loans. There is nothing wrong with making money, but if you personally don't like the way loans work, then live in an apartment until you can save enough money to pay cash.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
David, David, David... I can understand your lack of knowledge on these subjects because you are a college student with little experience in the world.
Millions of seniors are on a fixed income because they cannot work. When they did work, they weren't paid enough to save for retirement. Now, they have a choice... pay for drugs, or die... hmmmm great choices huh? With a fixed income, many seniors have little money to spend once they get past living expenses. For many middle-class seniors, they have to go into debt just to pay for drugs to live.
Let me get this straight. You see absolutely no problem with a business man inflating prices just to increase profit margins in these situations?
Capitalism survives because it's basic premise is sound. The trade of goods based on supply and demand. But when demand is fixed at such a high rate, the market should naturally reflect that in a drop in prices. The problem is, companies get together and parallel their prices. Drug companies agree not to lower their prices to a certain degree so everyone can make money. This is no different than a monopoly. Except instead of one company cornerning the market and exploiting consumers, you have three or four little companies doing it. I'm trying desperately to explain this to you, but you don't seem to be understanding this. The general business-man mentality of supply and demand and competition is sound. And I get the feeling that you believe in these ideals. Which is good. But what isn't good is that you don't see what is going on... or... you do see what is going on, but you agree with the selfish pigs perpetrating this fleecing of wealth. It's no different than stealing. And you can bet there is a special place in hell for these bastards.
|
|
| |
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 20:47
... BTW I think Clinton was just as bad a president as Reagan. Clinton might have been a self-proclaimed liberal, but he certainly did a lot for corporate America to be called the "Best Republican President" (courtesy of Michael Moore).
yeah that's me, thx...
|