Serfs were subjects of the govt(kings, lords, barons). With our govt growing in power, scope, and wealth. Do you think in the future we have the possibility to become modern day serfs to the govt run by a political class? I think in some ways many in our society already are. Instead of creating or earning their wealth they beg the lord(politician) for scraps in return for a vote.
If we were to become servants to the Government, it would be because of the influence of the very wealthy on the Government. When all of our wealth trickles up, there will be nothing left to do but beg... or have a new Bastille Day.
Having a degree of wealth redistribution, preferably by job creation, is a good thing. It keeps everyone happy.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Good points, CC. I have discovered that a shocking amount of people on this forum, mostly from the left, do not understand how our government works. Specifically, the roles of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, and this thing called "Checks and Balances".
This is very evident in all of the "But Bush...!" deficit arguments from the left, who conveniently neglect to mention that Bush can only propose the budget, then it must be voted on and approved by Congress, before Bush can sign it into law. Congress has been in Democrat hands since 2006...
/sarcasm
Regardless, I believe that this is a deficiency in our public schooling system, so we clearly must spend more money on public schools to address this issue!
/end sarcasm
Edit: Added sarcasm tags to make it evident.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
The influence of the wealthy on government? Who do you think is IN government, if not the wealthy? Yet your solution is apparently more government, meaning you want more control handed to the wealthy.
People like you are so mind bogglingly confused. "Please Mr. Billionaire Democrat, save us from the rich!"
So true. The left is so quick to condemn the right as a bunch of "old, rich white guys", yet, the two richest members of the Congress are in fact Democrats (Senator John Kerry and House Representative Jane Harman).
http://www.rollcall.com/featur...?type=printer_friendly
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Behavior modification through taxation.
Democrats just gotta have control of the servants ya know.
Democrats just gotta have control of the servants ya know.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
The rich in vast part run this country via lobbying. It's really pathetic, but it's so out in the open that it's not considered corruption when it's legal. I run a $10B company and hire some full time guys to run around Washington and invite senators out to lunch and give them some money and then I get something for it.
Surely the irony is not lost on you that you're one of the most practiced ideologues on the entire forums.[/quote]
No, you're wrong. You don't understand what ideology is; and you don't understand that the word seems relative to those who don't understand it.
I'll ask you, just to try to get a little point made - is opposing slavery the position of an ideologue? What about in Richmond, Virginia, in 1850? Would THAT be ann ideologue?
I'll say that most Virginians would have said so.
And they may have been right. You are out of your depth on the topic it appears.
You fail to understand that my posts are not ideologucal, they're the opposite, they counter ideology.
You can't tell whether they are ideologues - then or now - just based on what I posted, because that's not the definition of being an ideologue, to hold a position like that whether it's the mainstream, or the radical position againdt nearly all of the society. But that's lost on you, and I'm not in the mood to explain too much as your recklessness is annoying.
I throw up a little everytime I read his posts. It's almost just a desperate effort to blame the right wing every opportunity he has. Liberals tend to reduce problems... LOL. Are you kidding me? Both sides create problems, and it's up to us citizens to see the fine line between idealism and reality. Every party clings on to ideology. Get over it.
I believe that representative Government ought to be a check against Big Money. I would like to see corporate lobbying and donations eliminated. Every person should be limited to making $2000/year campaign contributions to each candidate/politician. Government should represent the people equally.
The Republican answer is simply to cut out the middle man and let the corporations and Big Money run it all.
Democrats aren't the best answer, but better than the alternative.
Why, yes, anecdotes are proof of generalities, in Ryanworld.
For example, some people say the rich prefer to pay fewer taxes, but Warren Buffet, sometimes the richest guy in America, supports HIGHER taxes on the wealthy.
That proves the rich are not for paying lower taxes for themselves!
The issue of the millions of people don't matter - say, the 90% rate of blacks as Democrats. No, Michael Steele says all you need to know about race-party issues.
The two richest members of Congress are Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), and yet, you accuse the Republicans about being out to get the middle man and all for corporations and Big Money.
Truly, illogical fallacies at its finest. It truly is mind-boggling.
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The two richest members of Congress are Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), and yet, you accuse the Republicans about being out to get the middle man and all for corporations and Big Money.
Truly, illogical fallacies at its finest. It truly is mind-boggling.
The net worth of the individual in office isn't the issue, its when Big Money uses its power and influence to further enrich itself at the expense of the rest of the nation.
On the one hand, you have raised some legitimate issues with the theory behind the policy.
On the other, you have gotten some of it wrong; for example, you don't appear to understand the practical issues of policy.
You object to blaming 'the group' instead of the bad individuals. Analogy - I don't need to stop at stop signs as a matter of law. I can full stop, nearly stop, or run right through them safely based on the traffic and visibility. So, obviously, we should repeal the stop sign laws since I'm being overly limited by the problems caused by the bad drivers, right?
You just show no real appreciation for the larger policy benefits and options; but again your criticisms are worth discussion.
As for your last point - the price overweight people pay for that is already high, regardless of the taxes, and that suggests the issue is more complicated.
A liberal might be more likely to study the issue and look for the real causes and options. Are there business issues, such as the cheap availability of corn syrup, which explain why corporations profit by using that while so much of the rest of the world uses sugar? What are the health implications? They might also research, why is obesity such a challenge despite the high price to the people, the fact that most overweight people would prefer not to be (as most smokers would prefer not to smoke, but face nicotine addiction)? What sensible policies might provide help to reduce obesity? Would the local government having more pakrs and activities help, and would the financial benefits from the reduced obesity make the costs of the parks a bargain?
Who knows - but that would be different than the 'do nothing' approach. Which isn't to say that certain policies might not be bad. But that's a rational discussion to decide.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Adults are overweight for the same reason children left to choose their own meals will formulate them all out of chocolate chip cookies, cheesos, and weiners. Because it tastes good and they either lack the ability or the care to look forward at how their current decisions impact their life. They can be redirected, and that's why parents make them eat vegetables instead of doritos for supper. With this approach the government can also direct people to do what they cannot or will not do for themselves, via force or manipulation. Make cigarettes cost $50/pack and smoking goes down. Make a can of coke cost $5 and it will go down, too. There are always consequences, some manageable, some not. Evidently banning liqour had intolerable ones. With an increase of pop prices, will people truly drink less and lose weight or will they just drink less and eat more chips? I think it's a weak policy. Surely we've all heard of schools that dropped soda and put in gatorade (which is in no way shape or form any better for a person at all).
I think if government is going to play daddy it should do it right. For example, if you have a gym membership and come tax season can show that you used it at least 120 times in the prior year, via a small slip of certified paper from the gym, you get to use the entire thing as a tax deduction. Or give tax deductions on the purchase of exercise equipment for home gyms. Will this happen? Hell no, because it costs money, it doesn't generate revenue.
You see, we both know that this is not about making people any healthier. It's about more money, using extra health as a cover. The government doesn't actually give a flying fvck about people's health. It is a business and cares about what businesses care about, which is money.
eits
Lifer
at first, i wasn't sure i liked the idea... now, i kinda do.
if you want to do things that have a good chance of giving you a disease, fine... but you'll have to pay for it more than the person who doesn't.
if you want to do things that have a good chance of giving you a disease, fine... but you'll have to pay for it more than the person who doesn't.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
I think a better idea would to remove the subsidies on corn that make HFCS (and other nutritionally bereft 'ingredients') so damned cheap to crank out instead of real food. When our food supply is so full of nutritionally bereft 'ingredients', no wonder our waistlanes have been expanding. That is the real elephant in the room. Besides, soft drinks haven't been made of sugar for the most part for a long time.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter