Ryan's Budget and the debt limit

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

We have a right to the earth and it's resources. WTF? My city still charges me for water. Will you please talk to them for me?

You need to talk to them if you are unhappy about it. Take some personal responsibly.

I wanna live in your world, man.

You already do.

I won't need to work.

Why? Would you be happy with a meager sustenance? I would not.

Just show up with one of those notes that the docs were handing out to the union folks in Wisconsin, and I can get me some land to squat on and a hunk of government cheese.

Buffoonery is alive and whell.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

So how would that work, exactly? You're suggesting that each family should just "have" a decent place to live, a bit of land, food and health insurance? Is that just given to families? By whom?

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it? How much land should each family get, and who decides?

What about single individuals? Do they get no land because they're not part of a family, or do they get less? What if they get married and start a family later? Does they have to find someplace on their own, or does a government agency relocate them to land deemed appropriate for families?

Is food just given away then? Would farmers, grocery workers, food distributors and manufacturers become gov't workers? Do restaurants still get to be owned by private individuals? How do they stay in business when food is available for free?

Of course, none of it is free, really? Someone's going to have to pay for this somehow, right? Who might that be?

Holy smokes! I simply state that I don't believe in simply letting people slide into disease, homelessness and abject poverty. But, by the time your brain gets done processing it you have me wanting to give everyone Bentleys, Beluga Caviar and waterfront estates in the Hamptons. (Actually, I'm sure we already do this for people who can damn well afford to buy their own.)

Good Lord, man, get a hold of yourself. It aint all that.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Why? Would you be happy with a meager sustenance? I would not.

Oh, I get it now. From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, I get it now. From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.

This is of course easy to agree on but the how to is not so easy. We know Marx's template did not work and we also know the capitalist/corporate template is crap.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, I get it now. From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.

Degrees, not absolutes......

Dave

[merrylander]

Capitalism vis a vis soci@lism neither is a panacea simply because they both failed to take human nature into account - people can be greedy and selfish and so must be regulated for their own good. If you are an honest and compassionate person such regulations will not bother you. If you are dishonest and selfish they will simply curb your bad appetites. In the long run which is better, an economy that grows steadily or boom and bust?

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Capitalism vis a vis soci@lism neither is a panacea simply because they both failed to take human nature into account - people can be greedy and selfish and so must be regulated for their own good. If you are an honest and compassionate person such regulations will not bother you. If you are dishonest and selfish they will simply curb your bad appetites. In the long run which is better, an economy that grows steadily or boom and bust?

+1 and QFT.

IMHO, there is no "perfect" economic system. But if you want to put in place a system that appeals most efficiently to the "better angles" in human nature, capitalism is the way to go. Capitalism allows individuals to maximize their talents and resources, produce economic growth, and efficiently convert capital. Sure, it is a system that produces winners and losers, but the compassionate nature of those who participate in the system provides for a social safety net. It also encourages risk taking, which often produces economic reward.

So*buttmonkey**buttmonkey**buttmonkey**buttmonkey* *buttmonkey**buttmonkey*m starts with the safety net, and encourages inefficiencies, and lack of participation in the economy. Its a system that provides an inherent reward for those who choose to be unproductive or under-productive. This creates a negative inertia that is very difficult to overcome.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

+1 and QFT.

IMHO, there is no "perfect" economic system. But if you want to put in place a system that appeals most efficiently to the "better angles" in human nature, capitalism is the way to go. Capitalism allows individuals to maximize their talents and resources, produce economic growth, and efficiently convert capital. Sure, it is a system that produces winners and losers, but the compassionate nature of those who participate in the system provides for a social safety net. It also encourages risk taking, which often produces economic reward.

So*buttmonkey**buttmonkey**buttmonkey**buttmonkey* *buttmonkey**buttmonkey*m starts with the safety net, and encourages inefficiencies, and lack of participation in the economy. Its a system that provides an inherent reward for those who choose to be unproductive or under-productive. This creates a negative inertia that is very difficult to overcome.

This is why I have no respect for most your posts. You have no ability to be rational and objective.

You always state nonsense as fact in an attempt to steer/control the discussion.

You know the way you started this post, "there is no "perfect" economic system" I had an interest in reading it but your very next line, "But if you want to put in place a system that appeals most efficiently to the "better angles" in human nature, capitalism is the way to go" immediately showed that an old horse never changes.

Question, what are "better angles" in human nature?
Sounds like a bony women.

Also, who the hell is allowed to maximize their "talents and resources" in a capitalistic system? Buttmonkies?


I used to think you were too smart to believe most of what you write, like a Carl Rove. I now believe you are the guy at the airport accepting the flower from the Moonie.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

This is why I have no respect for most your posts. You have no ability to be rational and objective.

You always state nonsense as fact in an attempt to steer/control the discussion.

You know the way you started this post, "there is no "perfect" economic system" I had an interest in reading it but your very next line, "But if you want to put in place a system that appeals most efficiently to the "better angles" in human nature, capitalism is the way to go" immediately showed that an old horse never changes.

Question, what are "better angles" in human nature?
Sounds like a bony women.

Also, who the hell is allowed to maximize their "talents and resources" in a capitalistic system? Buttmonkies?


I used to think you were too smart to believe most of what you write, like a Carl Rove. I now believe you are the guy at the airport accepting the flower from the Moonie.

I love you too, Noone, however blinded by your own prejudices you might be.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it?

Clearly, that is exactly what he is saying. I say we start with yours.

So, just to recap, what you're saying is, those of us with some money should drive up property value as far as we can so our investments are worth more and people who can't afford the high prices should be bussed to the desert without food or water and left to die of exposure. Is that right? If Jesus wants them to survive he’ll provide manna from heaven.

It’s good to know we’ve firmly established that any idea has to be taken to the most absurd extreme imaginable. We don’t want common sense rearing its ugly head.

Shoot, why should I have to pay to bus poor people to the desert? Let’s just shoot them. But wait until after they’re born. We don’t want to commit abortion. No, much better to whack them after they come out. That’s the Christian way.