Coffeehouse Thread

113 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

The strike begins tomorrow

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    raymond

     See below

     

     

     

     

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    But in reality, there would end up being 1 or 2 companies who own the entire food industry, and BOTH would be responsible for making an entire region sick from tainted meat. Your only decision would be to go with the company that does it least often. We already have this dynamic happening in the telecomm industry, and that's WITH some government oversight. Imagine what it would be like with even more limited government.

    There already are 1 or 2 companies that own the industry. We still have incidents of tainted meat. Is the FDA really helping here, or just helping to raise meat prices? In any case, regulating food products sold within a state should be the state government's job (if they care to do so). The constitution gives no such power to the federal government.

    It's funny that you mention a willingness to pay state tax over federal tax and then complain about pensions in back to back posts. The federal government stopped offering its pension plan to new enrollees in favor of a 401K-like Thrift Savings Plan back in the late '80s. It's the state governments that still offer pension plans. You don't hear about the notorious "double dippers" working for the federal government. These are all state government employees

    They're separate items in my mind. Union workers clinging to things that haven't been offered since the '80s and transferring power from a detached federal power to a more local power that has a much better chance of doing things that the populace wants. I pay 15% federal tax and 3% state tax. Reverse those numbers and we would see a much happier population. The federal government was meant to handle foreign affairs, mint coins, and regulate commerce between states and nothing more. No forced retirement savings (6.2% social security) and no forced charity for seniors (1.45% medicare), and definitely no forced health insurance.

    "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a strong principle of mine.

    Anyway, I really should get back to work, even if this is fun.

     

  • User profile image
    raymond

    I have read Atlas Shrugged twice many years ago.

    The collectivist hate the book and will hate the movie.

    The individualist like the book and will like the movie.

    I am waiting for a remake of The Fountainhead:

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , spivonious wrote

    *snip*

    I'm all for charity. Let people give to the causes they want to support. Just don't force it through taxation and government programs.

    If charity covered the issue, we wouldn't need social programs.  The problem is, however, that charity seems to dry up right about the time that the economy goes south.

    Education and healthcare are expensive because the student/patient is not the one paying for them. Back when patients paid for office visits out-of-pocket, the costs were much lower, because doctors wanted more patients to come in. College used to be very affordable until the majority of students were on financial aid.

    Back when healthcare had much lower costs, we were using leeches to cure cancer.  Good healthcare, from a doctor who has a degree from a legitimate school has always been expensive.  The poor just do without. 

    Same goes for education.  It's always been expensive.  If more students going to college is causing the costs to go up, then let's place the blame on student loans that put people into decades of debt.  Grants aren't that easy to come by.

    There is a huge sense of entitlement these days where people get upset if they can't stay on unemployment for 99 weeks. That's almost two full years. If you can't find a job during that time, you're either not looking hard enough or not willing to take a paycut.

    ...you forgot to suggest that they "move to whar tha jobs iz".  Seriously, there are a host of reasons why being unemployed will make you less attractive to companies, and I'm pretty sure that ~12million people aren't just being picky.

    Labor unions are pointless. Laws exist that protect worker's rights. Maximum hours, child labor, minimum wage, etc. Those are what unions were formed to get, not to ensure employment and get cushier benefits. Teachers are upset that they won't get as big of a pension? When was the last time you saw a private-sector job offering a pension? Oh no, the workers will have to pay some of their salary towards health insurance? Join the rest of the workforce.

    Get ready to pay them more money.  You might believe that having a pension is somehow a better deal than having to contribute to your own retirement, but let's not kid ourselves that teachers are paid well.  The pension and other benefits make up for this.  

    And labor unions act as enforcement of those laws.  I assure you that businesses would rather treat our population the same way they are willing to treat foreign populations.  In fact, that's a damn good example of why unions are neccessary.  As soon as businesses found a way to skirt these laws, they did so.  It's shameful.

    I'm not looking down on the poor, I'm just saying that for the majority (at least in my experience), they rely on government assistance way too much, and are all too quick to blame "the man" for their lack of prosperity. The rest of us had to work to get that college degree, to get that well-paying job, to get that promotion, to buy the nice house. It's not like the non-poor are all living off trust funds.

    Yes, kinda, you are looking down on the 'poor'.  And the unemployed.  And teachers.  And people who choose to contribute to society by working in areas that don't require a college education.  And people who aren't able to make it through college.  And the people who carry your garbage away from your house.  And the people who dig for coal to make electricity that powers your computer.

    I could go on.

    Everyone has an equal opportunity to live a better life. Some take it, and some sit around and complain.

    </rant>

    Better != wealthier.

     

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , spivonious wrote

    *snip*

    There already are 1 or 2 companies that own the industry. We still have incidents of tainted meat. Is the FDA really helping here, or just helping to raise meat prices? In any case, regulating food products sold within a state should be the state government's job (if they care to do so). The constitution gives no such power to the federal government.

    Geez, couldn't you come up something better than the ole "They're not doing their job correctly, so why do they need to exist?" argument?

    First of all, the FDA has nothing to do with meats (other than controlling what drugs are being fed to the animals that we eat). It's the USDA that has oversight over the meat industry. Second, how many deaths have you even heard of being attributed to tainted meats compared the billions of pounds of meats eaten by our fat-a$$ populace? Care to guess how many there MIGHT be if the USDA didn't certify meats? Of all things to b*tch about, you want to complain about the USDA? Really?

    Besides, you're derailing your own argument. Your original argument was about free trade being the answer to the elimination of tainted meats, and that there's no role for government. My argument is that free trade can't exist without the role of government. That you've already claimed that there are only 1 or 2 companies owning the meat industry, already supports the premise of there being too little power bestowed on the government to control the oligopolies in the meat industry. Hence, it's already too late for the free market to eliminate tainted meats, since there really is no free market.

    It sounds like your biggest complaint isn't that meats aren't safe. It's that they cost too much. Well, if you truly want lower costs, then you're not going to get it with 1 or 2 companies controlling the market, no matter how little regulation the USDA imposes, I'll tell you that.

    , spivonious wrote

    They're separate items in my mind. Union workers clinging to things that haven't been offered since the '80s and transferring power from a detached federal power to a more local power that has a much better chance of doing things that the populace wants. I pay 15% federal tax and 3% state tax. Reverse those numbers and we would see a much happier population. The federal government was meant to handle foreign affairs, mint coins, and regulate commerce between states and nothing more. No forced retirement savings (6.2% social security) and no forced charity for seniors (1.45% medicare), and definitely no forced health insurance.

    You obviously don't believe that the federal government should be involved in anything beyond what is explicitly prescribed to them by the Constitution.  I get it. Let the states have all the power. That's the state-level version of "I've got mine. Who cares about you?". By the way, did you enjoy driving down that interstate highway today to get to work so that you can surf the web by means of the Internet? Would your state even have an Internet if the federal government did only what the Constitution explicitly set forth?

    , spivonious wrote

    "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a strong principle of mine.

    Not everybody can afford boots.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    @spivonious:

    Pennsylvania, boot straps, yadda, yadda, yadda...

    Generic Forum Image

    "Here's a dollar. Give me back a buck-seven."

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    I don't understand why oversight by the FDA and USDA can't be replaced by efficient, private organizations like the Underwriters Laboratory.

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    @ScanIAm:

    I couldn't agree with you more. The right loves to oversimplify things. They say things like "everyone has an equal opportunity" -- right, we're all born with the same skill set, mental capacity, and at the same economic level. Anyone who believes the contrary must be lazy according to them. So you're mom get's run over in a cross-walk, no fault of her own. She's 53 and now needs years of thearapy to regain the use of her legs. She's a hard worker (worked many OT hours without pay over the years -- she has paid her dues) and has health insurance. The insurance is capped at $100K. Loss of work cost her a year's pay and medical expenses top $250K. So now what? She can't work. She can't cover the medical. Should we just euthinize her?

    They also say things like "we'll take care of each other like we always have" when they want to take away funding from social programs. The funny thing is we have so many examples of just the opposite -- the Savings & Loan scandal of the 90's, the recent failure of our financial markets, Enron, and the list goes on and on... A totally unregulated "free market" doesn't work.

    Last thought -- wasn't it the Republicans that barked about how "Obamacare" would cut funding for Medicare/Medicade and scared senior citizens into believing it was a bad thing? It's funny how they are trying to cut both programs substantially now. They sure know how to play the mindshare game.

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , Cream​Filling512 wrote

    I don't understand why oversight by the FDA and USDA can't be replaced by efficient, private organizations like the Underwriters Laboratory.

    Let's not forget the UL is a not-for-profit organization. That said I'm totally in agreement with ya; let's privatize all of heathcare into a single not-for-profit. That would sure cut down costs having a single system, massive buying power, etc. Smiley

  • User profile image
    DCMonkey

    , bryanedds wrote

    It's interesting that you never see an honest, intellectual objection to libertarianism, but rather either a mindless knee jerk reaction or vitriolic mud-slinging.

    There are conclusions that can be drawn from this.

     

    Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they
    plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more
    vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose.

    -- Ayn Rand

  • User profile image
    dahat

    So many easy to refute comments... and yet I resist.

    Why? Because this thread is about a book/movie... it's a shame that those who have never read it have hijacked it so... but it is good that a few have been honest enough to say they haven't read it.

    @blowdart: "utter selfishness of her heroes"... you'd hate her book The Virtue of Selfishness then Wink

    The strike begins today!

    Generic Forum Image

  • User profile image
    raymond
  • User profile image
    blowdart

    , dahat wrote

    @blowdart: "utter selfishness of her heroes"... you'd hate her book The Virtue of Selfishness then Wink

    Must be because I'm a filthy socialist at heart. Now redistribute your wealth Tongue Out

  • User profile image
    androst

    Apparently Ayn Rand is a racist old hag.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU&feature=grec_index 

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , dahat wrote

    So many easy to refute comments... and yet I resist.

    Why? Because this thread is about a book/movie... it's a shame that those who have never read it have hijacked it so... but it is good that a few have been honest enough to say they haven't read it.

    @blowdart: "utter selfishness of her heroes"... you'd hate her book The Virtue of Selfishness then Wink

    The strike begins today!

    I don't intend to spoil your fun.  I have a large number of sci-fi faves that I think would be AWESOME if they ever made it to the big screen.  I know how difficult it is to get real sci-fi up without it turning into a lowest-common-denominator crapfest that has nothing to do with the book.  Hell, I've never read starship troopers, either (it's coincidentally purchased and next on the list), but I actually did like the movie.  Probably because I hadn't read the book.

    If I could find some way to see AS without putting a penny in the producer's pocket, I would.  If I could donate some money to a 3rd world charity or save a pillowcase full of drowning kittens to offset supporting the producers, I would. 

    I do hope you enjoy it, though.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    And she really, really, really didn't like Libertarians

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Hell, I've never read starship troopers, either (it's coincidentally purchased and next on the list), but I actually did like the movie.  Probably because I hadn't read the book.

    The movie was a black-comedy and satire on a militarised, xenophobic society, using the book's story as the premise and backdrop. It isn't all that faithful and bears little resemblance to Heinlein's original work, nor reflects the the author's philosophy (which itself is up for discussion, see the long "Controversy" section on the WP article).

    As for this thread, marked as spam.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    And she really, really, really didn't like Libertarians

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

    Wow, she seems to think that Libertarians stole her ideas, as if she pre-dates Libertarian thought. On the other hand, Ayn Rand does look about 200 years old in that Phil Donahue clip, so all bets are off on that one.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.