January 31, 201016 yr Got into this in another thread it really should be on it's own. I have never understood why people who think that big business is bad, think that big government is good. I have always felt that the government is a necessary evil. That if you don't have government you have anarchy. We have a constitution that is written to explicitly limit the role of government. Over time, especially in the last 40 years or so, a number of people have seemed to develop the belief that it is the governments job to take care of us. Which IMO is totally false. It is the governments job to execute the constitution, which means that the government should get out of our way and create an environment where we can take care of ourselves and flourish. To me there seems to be this belief that for one person to flourish another has to suffer, and that is not true. Can we all succeed to the same level (depends on your definition of success)? the answer is no, some of us will fail. However we all have the opportunity to succeed to the same level, it is up to us. Punishing the successful people IMO is a recipe for eventual disaster.
January 31, 201016 yr Got into this in another thread it really should be on it's own. I have never understood why people who think that big business is bad, think that big government is good. I have always felt that the government is a necessary evil. That if you don't have government you have anarchy. We have a constitution that is written to explicitly limit the role of government. Over time, especially in the last 40 years or so, a number of people have seemed to develop the belief that it is the governments job to take care of us. Which IMO is totally false. It is the governments job to execute the constitution, which means that the government should get out of our way and create an environment where we can take care of ourselves and flourish. To me there seems to be this belief that for one person to flourish another has to suffer, and that is not true. Can we all succeed to the same level (depends on your definition of success)? the answer is no, some of us will fail. However we all have the opportunity to succeed to the same level, it is up to us. Punishing the successful people IMO is a recipe for eventual disaster. I have never understood why people who think big business is good, thinks big government is bad. I have always felt that large corporations are a necessary evil in our global society. If you don't have the large corporations you cannot increase markets. We have a Constitution that is expressly written to protect the rights of the people. Overtime, especially over the last 40 years or so a number of people have come to believe that capitalism with its large corporations will take care of us (trickle down). Which IMO is totally false. It is the governments job to insure that our rights are not suppressed by overzealous corporations, iron law of wages, harsh working conditions, monopolies. To me there seems to be this belief that if one person/company is making a great deal of money and controlling the economy that all of the little people will prosper as well. And this is not true. The incredible shrinking class (middle) will continue to do so to the point that there will be a rebellion and it will be ugly. We can all only prosper when the right conditions (read "laws and regs") are put into place the supports people when appropriate and restricts businesses as needed.
January 31, 201016 yr Per the other thread, I think that we have shown that the government has a different purpose than the business, so therefore they are not in the same category. Edited January 31, 201016 yr by True blue (and gold) word missing
January 31, 201016 yr Author I have never understood why people who think big business is good, thinks big government is bad. I have always felt that large corporations are a necessary evil in our global society. If you don't have the large corporations you cannot increase markets. We have a Constitution that is expressly written to protect the rights of the people. Overtime, especially over the last 40 years or so a number of people have come to believe that capitalism with its large corporations will take care of us (trickle down). Which IMO is totally false. It is the governments job to insure that our rights are not suppressed by overzealous corporations, iron law of wages, harsh working conditions, monopolies. To me there seems to be this belief that if one person/company is making a great deal of money and controlling the economy that all of the little people will prosper as well. And this is not true. The incredible shrinking class (middle) will continue to do so to the point that there will be a rebellion and it will be ugly. We can all only prosper when the right conditions (read "laws and regs") are put into place the supports people when appropriate and restricts businesses as needed. I agree with some of what you say. I know that unadulterated capitalism will not work. But, our country is composed of mostly small businesses and the carrot at the end is to become big and prosper. In doing so you create more jobs and more opportunities for more people to enrich their lives. You increase the number of people paying taxes and therefore increase the tax base. We, however, are stacking the decks against that. Jobs have left this country partly because of greed but also partly because our government over regulates and over taxes and helps create an environment where it is much more profitable to leave than stay. I personally think that while wages are a part of the reason they are not the driving force behind companies leaving. It is a part but not all. Most manufacturing runs on less than 8% labor, so if you cut wages in half you save 4%, not enough to justify moving a multi-million/billion dollar facility. But add in the fact that they'll save 10% in taxes and be able to save another 2-4% by being able to operate significantly cheaper because of less regs and suddenly they're savings is 16-18%. However, to me one of the biggest question revolves around "restricts business as needed" to me the government has overstepped it's bounds in many places and is trying to compete or control (not regulate) parts of the private sector.
January 31, 201016 yr I have never understood why people who think big business is good, thinks big government is bad. I have always felt that large corporations are a necessary evil in our global society. If you don't have the large corporations you cannot increase markets. We have a Constitution that is expressly written to protect the rights of the people. Overtime, especially over the last 40 years or so a number of people have come to believe that capitalism with its large corporations will take care of us (trickle down). Which IMO is totally false. It is the governments job to insure that our rights are not suppressed by overzealous corporations, iron law of wages, harsh working conditions, monopolies. To me there seems to be this belief that if one person/company is making a great deal of money and controlling the economy that all of the little people will prosper as well. And this is not true. The incredible shrinking class (middle) will continue to do so to the point that there will be a rebellion and it will be ugly. We can all only prosper when the right conditions (read "laws and regs") are put into place the supports people when appropriate and restricts businesses as needed. Thank you Karl Marx. I will keep my eye open for the revolution.
February 1, 201016 yr Got into this in another thread it really should be on it's own. I have never understood why people who think that big business is bad, think that big government is good. I have always felt that the government is a necessary evil. That if you don't have government you have anarchy. We have a constitution that is written to explicitly limit the role of government. Over time, especially in the last 40 years or so, a number of people have seemed to develop the belief that it is the governments job to take care of us. Which IMO is totally false. It is the governments job to execute the constitution, which means that the government should get out of our way and create an environment where we can take care of ourselves and flourish. To me there seems to be this belief that for one person to flourish another has to suffer, and that is not true. Can we all succeed to the same level (depends on your definition of success)? the answer is no, some of us will fail. However we all have the opportunity to succeed to the same level, it is up to us. Punishing the successful people IMO is a recipe for eventual disaster. My only response deals with the bolded. Why do people say "40 years ago" was when this or that changed? In terms of government intrusion, wouldn't you say that it was almost 70 years ago with Social Security nets? Work programs? Interstate? TVA? Just curious. :idunno:
February 1, 201016 yr My only response deals with the bolded. Why do people say "40 years ago" was when this or that changed? In terms of government intrusion, wouldn't you say that it was almost 70 years ago with Social Security nets? Work programs? Interstate? TVA? Just curious. :idunno: Probably because many of us that weren't around 75 years ago but who are children of the 60s think of The Great Society, the War on Poverty, etc. as examples of programs fostering dependence on government.
February 1, 201016 yr My only response deals with the bolded. Why do people say "40 years ago" was when this or that changed? In terms of government intrusion, wouldn't you say that it was almost 70 years ago with Social Security nets? Work programs? Interstate? TVA? Just curious. :idunno: Good point, I think you're right that the idea that government should be more of a "nanny state" probably gained much ground 75-80 years ago.
February 1, 201016 yr Probably because many of us that weren't around 75 years ago but who are children of the 60s think of The Great Society, the War on Poverty, etc. as examples of programs fostering dependence on government. I guess you see my bona contention then. It was that way before we came along. It's not as "new" as people paint it out to be. In fact, can we not go back a little farther? WW I vets were promised bonuses in their later life for service given the country. When the Great Depression occurred they marched on Washington demanding the bonuses then instead of later. The government was offering federal pensions to servicemen. Is that "big government" or the beginning of "big government?" Pensions were even given by the governments to former CSA veterans in their later life. As to the argument about big business vs. government intervention, how did the current work week come into being? Where did the 40 hour work week come from? Big business or Government regulation? Big government has always been around in some form or another. It's just become even bigger would be my contention. So for the purist who rails vs. current "big brother" attempts I would say, "Where was the outcry for the last 100 years?"
February 1, 201016 yr Where did the 40 hour work week come from? Big business or Government regulation? Are you telling me there is such a thing as a "40 hour work week"? Who do I talk to and where do I sign up?
February 1, 201016 yr Why do people think it's government's place to find you a job? Why isn't this administration leaving this to the private sector? The best thing the government can do is to get the heck out of the way.
February 1, 201016 yr Why do people think it's government's place to find you a job? Why isn't this administration leaving this to the private sector? The best thing the government can do is to get the heck out of the way. Yep, get out of the way so that we can go back to the unhealthy meat packing industry employing children and overworking adults. We can have lead paint in our toys and on our window sills. We can have dirty restaurants and waste piling up everywhere.
February 1, 201016 yr Yep, get out of the way so that we can go back to the unhealthy meat packing industry employing children and overworking adults. We can have lead paint in our toys and on our window sills. We can have dirty restaurants and waste piling up everywhere.What the heck does any of that have to do with the government finding you a job? :lol: You in overload today? :lol: :lol: :lol:
February 1, 201016 yr What the heck does any of that have to do with the government finding you a job? :lol: You in overload today? :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh I see, you only want the government to get out the way in certain areas, but not all. Because they have certainly done a bang up job of putting people back to work recently.
February 1, 201016 yr Oh I see, you only want the government to get out the way in certain areas, but not all. Because they have certainly done a bang up job of putting people back to work recently. The last thing I'm eager to do is wade into the middle of this... but the implied logic that because the government should take on as much as possible because the government has done some good things is just as faulty as the assertion that government should get completely out of the way. Balance is needed... and balance is not what is being pursued by this administration or congress IMO.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.