The war on poverty was a failure.

I guess you were comatose in 2008-2010.

No, just dissing business trying to make a profit and be "successful" at taking people's money without making any commensurate contribution in return.

Or maybe just economically literate.

 

I'd think the conservatives would understand the 'tragedy of the commons' being played-out here.

'The workers' are a commons being exploited by capital. Every firms wants to drives it's labor cost down, counting on others workers, in their role as consumers, to keep demand up and keep everything growing. But everyone has done it well enough that demand is no longer growing. The solution, as always when a commons starts degrading, is to rush to exploit it as much as you can as fast as you can, before the final crash.

The real solution is to move the economic pie back towards the sharing seen in the 1950s. Hear are a couple of graphics from the film "740 Park Avenue", that show how things have changed:





Seems to me we haven't understood who the enemy is, in the 'war on poverty.'

 

Workers are not the commons. They are not commonly owned by your government despite its belief that is the case.

When did the median income in this cou try rise the fastest? Did the gap between rich and poor widen during that exact same time? If yes, you must see that there is no correlation you are trying to make. Now please dodge these very straightforward and simple questions so you can continue believing your leftist dogma.

 

Again there is no such thing as corporate welfare. That is a made up term by liberals on forums. There are business tax write offs. Is that what you are talking about? If so what tax write off do you wish to eliminate?


Sorry but business makes a contribution by giving people jobs. If they felt like they could make a profit they will hire more people. If they feel it is too risky to hire people right now then they will not. You expect something from business that is not a requirement of them.

 

You can pretend that if you wish, but corporate interests lobby politicians for and often receive financial assistance constantly. Take the nuclear power industry as an example. No business would initiate constructing a power plant without government subsidies, loan guarantees, and exemption from legal liabilities.

I haven't "dissed" business in any manner, and since I have run my own for years with what I consider reasonable success, it would not make much sense. I operate in a system made profitable by government's regulation, maintenance of stability, and essential public infrastructure. I have never "given" jobs to anyone, either. When I have hired folks, it has always because I have depended on them and it has always been to our mutual advantage.

You can guess whatever you please, but if you actually regard a portrait of a Republican President born in Vermont as a European icon, you are confused, to put it mildly, and should seriously harbour doubts about the extent of your acumen.

I no not worship the wealthy any more than I demonize the poor, nor do I find the moral injunctions encapsulated in the aforementioned biblical principles incompatible with democratic capitalism. Quite the contrary.



.

 

Are you a US citizen? Whats so hard answering the question?

 

No, they are not a commons like a held-in-common pasture or something. It's an analogy. But just as with the classic commons, we now see bad results coming from individual firms all acting in their particular interests, in a system in which their short-term-gain is followed by long-term dysfunction.

Let's start with you giving the source of your data, so we can vet your claim?

 

Are you attempting a 'you're not one of us' ad-hominem attack?

 

No, and please mind your own business. It does no good to second guess anyone. I have very little patience for hallway monitors.

 

What subsidies are you talking about and be specific not some vague assertion.

Those aren't subsidies.

 

Keeping argument civil and reasonable is everyone's responsibility.

You sound angry. Are you a white male?*

 

You sound like a angry insignificant liberal European? Is this correct?

 

1) Yes.

2) Nothing.

3) What is the most inappropriate locale in which you have urinated?

(Not that I care, but I just felt that I should reciprocate if we are playing, "Let's posit irrelevant questions.")

 

I'd say you hit the nail on the head. Nobody's more opinionated than folks with no stake in the game.

Most poor people would prefer to be treated as equals, not singled out by class. Liberals have to make everybody victims. W/o victims, there is no Dem party.

 

Thank you, When you talked about owning a business it is helpful to know in which Country and what regulations that govern.

As far as urinating, I would have to say Afghanistan.

 

Why do you think I seem angry? What have I said that indicates that? Have I expressed impatience? Have I called anyone a name? Have I responded rudely to anyone in any way?

Given the data you have and the context, I'm afraid I have to regard 'insignificant' as nothing but an insult. Argument by insult is not good conversational practice. I hope you'll reform.

You do seem stuck on this 'you're not from around here, are you?' tactic. It's very irrational, I fear. Let's say I was from Europe. What would this mean, that is worth bringing out in coversation?

 

Since the nation began using nuclear energy, the federal government has provided billions in subsidies to the industry. As of 2009, $85 billion had been spent on the nuclear industry since 1948.

 

Of course there is. A couple of years ago, the New York Times had an interactive website where you could change the federal budget in detail, to see the effects of cutting or increasing various kinds of programs, taxes, etc. I found it would be EASY to balance the budget just by cutting corporate welfare.

It is a term made up because it was needed to identify a fact of objective reality.

There are also government checks cut for corporate welfare parasites. That is merely a fact that you have decided not to know.

It's one of the things.

Start with the deferral for offshore profits.

Wrong:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=317411&highlight=this+rich+create+jobs

In many cases, business merely collects protection money from people who would otherwise have access to jobs.

Yes, and the problem is that the game has been rigged to make it profitable for them if they don't hire people, or even produce anything.

No, I expect them to be greedy. I want them to be required to make a contribution in order to make a profit.

 

I was not even aware that folks considered it inappropriate to urinate in Afghanistan Where do they go?

 

You seem to have a strange idea of what subsidies are. Is even TARP a subsidy, according to you?

Of course they are.

 

The Op answered the question, please keep up and stay on topic.

 

Leaving aside that you're just jumping on the irrational 'you're not from around here' bandwagon,' is it not possible that someone with 'no stake in the game' might bring more objective insights to the conversation? Shouldn't arguments be judged on their merits?

Equivocation fallacy. 'Treated as equals' means not 'not singled out for discrimination.' Has nothing to do with, for example, economic analysis by income groups. The act of analysis does not constitute 'treating anyone unequally.'

 

Oh, you mean all of a sudden you DON'T want to discuss where I'm from? Well, that's good. Hopefully we've heard the last of that.

 

Trying to use a nuclear power plant as an example of corporate welfare is not a good one. The nuclear energy field is almost a government agency as it is so heavily regulated. Can you give me a more clear cut example of this so called "corporate welfare"?

 

I thought you asked locale? Was I wrong? It was inappropriate because it was my last tour . Are you satisfied about my urinating? If you would like,I can send a sample?