The Populism of Billionaires

I neglected to link to the following url, sponsored by Obama's last employer (excepting the federal government).

http://projectvote.org/images/publications/Reports%20on%20the%20Electorate/Poll_of_2008_Voters/PV_Poll_of_2008_Voters-Full_Report-September2010_FINAL.pdf

I'm pretty sure I said hold the Jello Ziggy. What have to you got to back up your claim?

ziggy wrote:The U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistance.

By the way, even though you accept it as "maybe" the best...etc., you're still not fond of it, are you?

I am not sure; some days I am more "fond" of it, and other days less so. Ideally, I think I'd like to see the free market work for everyone all the time. But history shows us that even the "free market" is not free of certain non-governmental market manipulations designed to make the markets more "free" for some and less free for others.

And absolute governmental central planning has been a demonstrated economic failure- i.e- U.S.S.R. and Cuba. Central planning is too rigid to allow economic breathing room for necessary innovations, and does not allow flexibility to deal with unintended economic consequences of central planning edicts.

Aaron wrote:I'm pretty sure I said hold the Jello Ziggy. What have to you got to back up your claim?

ziggy wrote:The U.S. economy is deliberately managed such that at any one time from 4 to 10 percent, sometimes more, of the people are unemployed. Those people are the victims of an economy that is successful and fruitful for some, mediocre for others, and not al all for others. In such a managed economy, those who are successful because of the way the economy is managed owe to those who are unsuccessful because of that management some measure of minimal subsistance.

Sixty years of history.

So you got nothing.

I'm not suprised!!!

ziggy wrote:

So how can people be economically "productive" if they are unemployed because of systematically induced unemployment?

First, What I think of you and those who think like you isn't isn't the issue. What burns me up is when you go running to the bloodsucking politicians to force your distorted view of the world on me. What further burns me up is that you can't answer a simple question.

Second, since I do have the guts to answer, the system isn't the issue. Even in a system that is is managed to always have unemployment, that doesn't excuse anyone from being productive or at least attempting to be productive.

First, What I think of you and those who think like you isn't isn't the issue. What burns me up is when you go running to the bloodsucking politicians to force your distorted view of the world on me.

Again Cato, I did not invent the economic system we are discussing. I was born into it. It evolved over the course of generations before and after me. It is not my fault that you and those who agree with you cannot muster enough political support to change it to suit your fancy.

What further burns me up is that you can't answer a simple question.

To answer a "simple question", first the question has to actually be simple. And your's isn't, to wit:

Second, since I do have the guts to answer, the system isn't the issue. Even in a system that is is managed to always have unemployment, that doesn't excuse anyone from being productive or at least attempting to be productive.

With a wave of your dismissive hand, you try to make the dynamics of the American ecenomy as simple as "being productive or at least attempting to be productive"? But again, that questions is meaningless unless one first answers the question of how can one be economically productive if one is unemployed do to management toward always having systematic unemployment.

ziggy wrote:
Again Cato, I did not invent the economic system we are discussing. I was born into it. It evolved over the course of generations before and after me. It is not my fault that you and those who agree with you cannot muster enough political support to change it to suit your fancy.

I'd be bery careful about your statement. There is an undertow in this nation that I don't think you or the elitist class wants to fool with. As far as support goes. I remind you, your beloved ruling class passed legislation that was very unpopular with a broad band of citizens.

ziggy wrote:
To answer a "simple question", first the question has to actually be simple. And your's isn't, to wit:

Cato wrote: Second, since I do have the guts to answer, the system isn't the issue. Even in a system that is is managed to always have unemployment, that doesn't excuse anyone from being productive or at least attempting to be productive.

With a wave of your dismissive hand, you try to make the dynamics of the American ecenomy as simple as "being productive or at least attempting to be productive"? But again, that questions is meaningless unless one first answers the question of how can one be economically productive if one is unemployed do to management toward always having systematic unemployment.

My question isn't about the system that you say exists. My question is where do you get the moral authority to take what I have earned and give it to another.

My question is where do you get the moral authority to take what I have earned and give it to another.

What does moral have to do with it? The government has the LEGAL authority. If you don't like it, change the laws.

My question isn't about the system that you say exists. My question is where do you get the moral authority to take what I have earned and give it to another.

You keep trying to make this about me instead of about the economic system- which, like it or not, includes the government- we live within. I have never claimed any moral authority to do anything other than to live as l please as long as I do not disallow others from doing likewise.

I often don't like it, and you often don't like it. But government puppets and their political campaign cash head turners are not about moral authority. They are about the Constitution and legal authority as interpreted by the Courts and as administered by too often corrupt public officials.

Doctrines of "moral authority" are for moral authoritarians such as yourself. That you keep demanding that I or others show you some "moral authority" for this or that or the other that we have no control over speaks volumes. Along with your other rants, it tells us that you recognize no "moral authority" other than your own authoritarian pontifications.

ziggy wrote:

My question isn't about the system that you say exists. My question is where do you get the moral authority to take what I have earned and give it to another.

You keep trying to make this about me instead of about the economic system- which, like it or not, includes the government- we live within. I have never claimed any moral authority to do anything other than to live as l please as long as I do not disallow others from doing likewise.

I often don't like it, and you often don't like it. But government puppets and their political campaign cash head turners are not about moral authority. They are about the Constitution and legal authority as interpreted by the Courts and as administered by too often corrupt public officials.

Doctrines of "moral authority" are for moral authoritarians such as yourself. That you keep demanding that I or others show you some "moral authority" for this or that or the other that we have no control over speaks volumes. Along with your other rants, it tells us that you recognize no "moral authority" other than your own authoritarian pontifications.

Now you are catching on, it is about you. The question is directed specifically to you. Either you support the present Welfare, nanny state system or you don't. Do you support the present system of taking the labor of one and giving it to another who will not make the attempt. If so I want to know is where you get the moral authority to do so.

Do you support the present system of taking the labor of one and giving it to another who will not make the attempt.

Again, your question is false. It is not about ................ "another who will not make the attempt". It is about a system that guarantees that some percentage of the people do not have the opportunity "to make the attempt" because they are locked out from the ranks of the employed.

ziggy wrote:

Do you support the present system of taking the labor of one and giving it to another who will not make the attempt.

Again, your question is false. It is not about ................ "another who will not make the attempt". It is about a system that guarantees that some percentage of the people do not have the opportunity "to make the attempt" because they are locked out from the ranks of the employed.

First of all, everyone has the oppertunity to make the attempt. That doesn't mean everyone will succeed, however. Nobody is locked out of the system, unless they choose to be locked out. When I was layed off during the Carter Stagflation mess, I had two choices, whine about it or learn a new skill, one that was in demand. The system didn't make the choice, I did. I could have chose to live off unemployment for 6 months and then fade away, but I didn't. Evern during the worst of times, I used the skills I had to find employment and then worked to obtain skills that would ensure my continued employment. If I follow his posts correctly, Aaron is doing the samething right now. I have had my ups and downs since that time. The fact of the matter is the economic system is not skewed against anyone, however, it is very fluid. People succeed and people fail.

Finally, judging by your inability to give an honest answer to what you think, I believe what you are really saying is that you support a system that takes from a productive individual and gives that to folks who choose to live off the public dole.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Do you support the present system of taking the labor of one and giving it to another who will not make the attempt.

Again, your question is false. It is not about ................ "another who will not make the attempt". It is about a system that guarantees that some percentage of the people do not have the opportunity "to make the attempt" because they are locked out from the ranks of the employed.

First of all, everyone has the oppertunity to make the attempt. That doesn't mean everyone will succeed, however. Nobody is locked out of the system, unless they choose to be locked out. When I was layed off during the Carter Stagflation mess, I had two choices, whine about it or learn a new skill, one that was in demand. The system didn't make the choice, I did. I could have chose to live off unemployment for 6 months and then fade away, but I didn't. Evern during the worst of times, I used the skills I had to find employment and then worked to obtain skills that would ensure my continued employment. If I follow his posts correctly, Aaron is doing the samething right now. I have had my ups and downs since that time. The fact of the matter is the economic system is not skewed against anyone, however, it is very fluid. People succeed and people fail.

Yes Cato, I am doing that right now. I'll end up with some student loans that have to be repaid even though there are literally thousands at State getting a free ride (including about a hundred or so from Ethopia which I really don't understand) but I would rather do that then do nothing. And unlike a lot of people in the workforce, if I think I'm worth more then someone is willing to pay, I won't accept a position to then cry about it later. As I told one HR person, I will not do operations management for supervisor pay. I'll scrimp and scrape and get by and when it is all said and done, I'll likely leave this state.

Cato wrote:Finally, judging by your inability to give an honest answer to what you think, I believe what you are really saying is that you support a system that takes from a productive individual and gives that to folks who choose to live off the public dole.

He has said that countless times Cato and is merely using his unsubstaniated claims that the government intentionally locks out a segment as justification.

If he would just come out and state his position without making up tripe to justify his liberal leanings, I could at least respect that. As it is, well...

Aaron,

Have you noticed the board leftie has shyed away from this thread.

Cato

I'm still right here, Cato. I haven't gone anywhere. You have asked the same false question over and over about my "moral authority" over matters of government and economics over which I have no more control than you do. When you ask an honest question, I'll try to offer up an honest answer. Until then, I still be here- waiting patiently.

ziggy wrote:I'm still right here, Cato. I haven't gone anywhere. You have asked the same false question over and over about my "moral authority" over matters of government and economics over which I have no more control than you do. When you ask an honest question, I'll try to offer up an honest answer. Until then, I still be here- waiting patiently.

I didn't figure you'd answer. Truthfully, I knew you lacked either the moral insight or courage to defend your position. So, I'll answer for you. If I had to venture a guess you like your leftist counterparts think you have a corner on morality. You believe you know what is best for all concerned and you will use the force of government to make those who disagree comply. You see yourself as being morally superior to anyone else. Beleive me that is obvious based on many of your posts to me.

Now, the fact of the matter is you ain't. You nor anyone else has the moral authority to extort at the point of a gun, theft, the reward of the labor of another. You may think you have, but you don't. Be it social, corporate, or foreign welfare, it is nothing more than plain theft to take what I or anyone else has earned and redistribute it to any other. If you support that in anyway shape or form, and by the way you do, you are nothing more than a thief.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:I'm still right here, Cato. I haven't gone anywhere. You have asked the same false question over and over about my "moral authority" over matters of government and economics over which I have no more control than you do. When you ask an honest question, I'll try to offer up an honest answer. Until then, I still be here- waiting patiently.

I didn't figure you'd answer. Truthfully, I knew you lacked either the moral insight or courage to defend your position. So, I'll answer for you. If I had to venture a guess you like your leftist counterparts think you have a corner on morality. You believe you know what is best for all concerned and you will use the force of government to make those who disagree comply. You see yourself as being morally superior to anyone else. Beleive me that is obvious based on many of your posts to me.

You are either a liar, Cato, or else you do not pay attention to my posts- nor to your own. For what it's worth, it is my opinion that you are not a deliberate liar, but rather that you just shoot emotionally from the hip from day to day, without regard for what either of us has been saying more consistently over time here.

I challenge you to cite even one of my posts that indicates what you just said- that I consider myself morally superior to anyone. Time after time here I have said that there is no absolute morality- that each of us has to find a morality that works for us in our relationships with the human and natural world around us. YOU, on the other hand- continually offer that there is only one, universal morality- and that morality developed from within our human minds rather than from your God is no morality at all. So then, tell us again, who is it- Cato or Ziggy- who considers himself morally superior? It certainly is not Ziggy. I do not consider myself, nor you, nor your pastor nor my pastor nor anyone else as any more or any less moral than the next average person who comes along. And that seem to infuriate you to no end. And so you invent all manner of accusations to misrepresent your own feelings- of you and your God having a superior morality- to someone else, to me in the post above.

Now, the fact of the matter is you ain't.

That is absolutely correct. I am not. And please remember that I said that.

You nor anyone else has the moral authority to extort at the point of a gun, theft, the reward of the labor of another.

I do not claim any such moral authority. You and I are equally the victims of government taxation "at the point of a gun". We both vote. So you are just as complicit as I am in what our government does.

Be it social, corporate, or foreign welfare, it is nothing more than plain theft to take what I or anyone else has earned and redistribute it to any other. If you support that in anyway shape or form, and by the way you do, you are nothing more than a thief.

Then why do you overlook hundreds of billions in corporate welfare unless prodded, but whine on endlessly about what you call "baby factories"- jobless parents who do not have a seat (a job) at the economic table?

I will venture that you have voted for more successful (elected) state and federal political candidates than I have the past 40 years or so. So again, you are just as guilty as I am of what you accuse me of. Only a couple days ago you suggested that I should go to Cuba- presumably because you think I am unsatisfied with the U.S. system of economics and government. But it is you, Cato, who says that the government is corrupt and that its voting citizens like me are thieves. Why should I go anywhere because YOU are dissatisfied with the government? What sense does that make?

So again, I am not going anywhere- not to Cuba, nor am I walking away from this thread as you suggested. I will be right here, still waiting for you to ask an honest question instead of projecting your own doctrines of universal moral superiority onto others- and especially onto me who consistently argues that there is NO superior morality and that all morality is relative to the individuals and to the larger societies of human populations.

ziggy wrote:

You are either a liar, Cato, or else you do not pay attention to my posts- nor to your own. For what it's worth, it is my opinion that you are not a deliberate liar, but rather that you just shoot emotionally from the hip from day to day, without regard for what either of us has been saying more consistently over time here.

You are right I do get emotional about this. It burns my butt that I have to struggle to make ends meet, and I then watch a a baby factory and her husband/boyfriend/or whatever, by thier food with food stamps.

ziggy wrote:I challenge you to cite even one of my posts that indicates what you just said- that I consider myself morally superior to anyone.

When you and your leftist brethern Terry RC railed at me because I choose not to use my property to rent to honsexual couples.

ziggy wrote:I do not claim any such moral authority. You and I are equally the victims of government taxation "at the point of a gun". We both vote. So you are just as complicit as I am in what our government does.

One is only complicit if they voted for the pukes. I haven't.

ziggy wrote:Then why do you overlook hundreds of billions in corporate welfare unless prodded, but whine on endlessly about what you call "baby factories"- jobless parents who do not have a seat (a job) at the economic table?

I haven't overlooked either. It is not my responsibility to see that a business make a profit, nor is it my responsibility to see that the baby factories have a seat at some economic table. The one falls to the owners of the business the other falls to the baby factory.

ziggy wrote:I will venture that you have voted for more successful (elected) state and federal political candidates than I have the past 40 years or so.

I wouldn't bet anything I wanted to keep on that.

ziggy wrote:So again, I am not going anywhere- not to Cuba, nor am I walking away from this thread as you suggested. I will be right here, still waiting for you to ask an honest question instead of projecting your own doctrines of universal moral superiority onto others- and especially onto me who consistently argues that there is NO superior morality and that all morality is relative to the individuals and to the larger societies of human populations.

uh huh!! I have asked an honest question and yet you dance around it like News Orleans whore. Finally, whether you like ot not or believe it or not, there is right and wrong, despite society, or being relative to the people and/or situation.

You are right I do get emotional about this. It burns my butt that I have to struggle to make ends meet, and I then watch a a baby factory and her husband/boyfriend/or whatever, by thier food with food stamps.

Do you get equally emotional when your relatives, friends or neighbors drive by in a GM or Chrysler car or truck that was paid for in part by corporate welfare?

ziggy wrote:

You are right I do get emotional about this. It burns my butt that I have to struggle to make ends meet, and I then watch a a baby factory and her husband/boyfriend/or whatever, by thier food with food stamps.

Do you get equally emotional when your relatives, friends or neighbors drive by in a GM or Chrysler car or truck that was paid for in part by corporate welfare?

I own an S-10 pickup, So. What is owning a GM or Crysler got to do with the discussion?

Well, you say it "burns your butt" and that you get all emotional when you see a "baby factory" family using government welfare (food stamps). If one owns a 2009-2010 model GM or Chrysler product, that too was paid for in part by government welfare paid to GM and Chrysler. So my question is do you get as emotional about and does it burn your butt as much to see a late model GM or Chrysler car or truck that was paid for in part by government welfare to GM and Chrusler as it does to see a family using food stamps?

ziggy wrote:Well, you say it "burns your butt" and that you get all emotional when you see a "baby factory" family using government welfare (food stamps).

If one owns a 2009-2010 model GM or Chrysler product, that too was paid for in part by government welfare paid to GM and Chrysler.

Ziggy, in that you did not specifically refer to current or retired GM or Chrysler employees who purchased a 2009-2010 model GM or Chrysler product and exercised their "union rights" to purchase said vehicle at or slightly above "factory cost" ....... then your above statement is one of the most asinine and stupid comments you have made in a while.

Next you will be claiming that if one buys their food from a grocery store that employs 1 or more subsidized "welfare workers" then the food they purchased was paid for in part by government welfare.

Or will you be claiming that since all oil companies are given "tax breaks" on one thing or another then every gallon of gasoline and/or quart of oil that one purchases was paid for in part by government welfare.

Silly me, just wasting my trying to tell you anything, ....... just like your accountant years ago.

Ziggy, in that you did not specifically refer to current or retired GM or Chrysler employees who purchased a 2009-2010 model GM or Chrysler product and exercised their "union rights" to purchase said vehicle at or slightly above "factory cost" ....... then your above statement is one of the most asinine and stupid comments you have made in a while.

And not only that, I get to try to do even better again tomorrow!

ziggy wrote:Well, you say it "burns your butt" and that you get all emotional when you see a "baby factory" family using government welfare (food stamps). If one owns a 2009-2010 model GM or Chrysler product, that too was paid for in part by government welfare paid to GM and Chrysler. So my question is do you get as emotional about and does it burn your butt as much to see a late model GM or Chrysler car or truck that was paid for in part by government welfare to GM and Chrusler as it does to see a family using food stamps?

It also burns my butt when one has no argument so they resort to childish responces that absolutely make no sence nor have any bearing on the discussion.