The decline of America

[Antimatter]

Edit: Let me add that at the end of the Rings Trilogy the hobbits of the shire have been taken over by Saruman and Grima Worm-tongue, and it's only the actions of Merry and Pippen who rouse the hobbits to oust them. It's been a while, but I seem to remember that one of the hobbits got rich, and used the money to hire outside mercenaries to take over the shire. He is then ousted by Saruman. Money and industrialization overcome the bonds of society, and freedom is lost.

 

 

I vaguely remember the drama when they all returned to the Shire. Saruman wanted to pay them back for trashing Isengaard by himself trashing the Shire. Lots of drama and fighting ensue, Saruman and Grima are killed (or kill each other), but if I recall it's Samwise Gamgee and the seeds given to him by the Lady of Lothlorian that restore the Shire to a place of beauty.

 

Tell you what, that was the book that never ended! So it may well be that I don't have the whole story. In fact, I remember epilogs and post-3rd age material tacked onto the end of "Return of the King". By then, I had enough! Tolkien had way too much time on

his hands.

 

Ever read Beowulf? Tolkien was interested in writing a saga for England. Hence, it went on and on. Not much to do up in the North during winter but tell stories and get drunk.

[russell_bynum]

zzzzzz

 

I think I may be one of the 3 IT workers to have never read LoTR much less seen any of the movies.

 

Now I know why...

 

Four.

[steve.foote]

I think I may be one of the 3 IT workers to have never read LoTR much less seen any of the movies.

 

I wonder who the other guy is.

[steve.foote]

Oh, it's Russell.

[Matts_12GS]

Oh, it's Russell.

 

I still have a goal to be the last person on earth to ever see ET also...

[beemerman2k]

Oh, it's Russell.

 

I still have a goal to be the last person on earth to ever see ET also...

 

Back when ET first opened, some friends came over and we went to the theater to see it. I had never heard of the film, and when I learned the name, I thought it was about drag racing! I'm pretty sure we saw it on opening day.

 

When the movie ended, I said to them, "talk about a bomb! I'm supposed to believe that stupid toy is actually an alien being? Get real! And even if it were an alien being, why do I care if it gets home or not? Terrible movie". Imagine my surprise over the next year or so when the world went ET mad! I knew right then and there I would not make a good movie critic.

[Ken H.]

You (Bob) state that your overall philosophy is probably unrealistic in the current environment. Whether you're talking about the political environment or the social environment, I don't think "environment" is the roadblock; rather, it's human nature. while acting in a completely indivualistic/selfish manner is harmful to society, I'd submit that individuals can never be made to completely subjugate their self-interest and work strictly for the betterment of society at large. Yet this is exactly what your philosophy requires:

 

It basically relies on a desire by a (vast) majority of people to make their goals a better society for all rather than personal gain.

They are not mutually exclusive. It is a symbiotic relationship that must be both recognized and nourished for both societal and individual success/survival. But we(the West) has lost track of that. We’ve gravitated to value the individual will disregarding the collective.

 

[Bob Palin]

They are not mutually exclusive. It is a symbiotic relationship that must be both recognized and nourished for both societal and individual success/survival. But we(the West) has lost track of that. We’ve gravitated to value the individual will disregarding the collective.

I agree

[Ken H.]

I think that the idea that early America was a place of peaceful virtue is a myth. The railroad barons of the 19th century had no qualms about using naked force to get their way, and often used the government to do their dirty work for them. Early industrialists were the same way; fire the man and hire the wife at 50 cents on the dollar, then fire the wife and hire the children at 25 cents on the dollar. And throw your waste in the river and let whoever is downstream worry about it. Those are the lessons of unregulated capitalism; maximize profits by minimizing costs. And if you can use a gun or a whip to minimize costs, you will.

Yup, and the ‘nanny-state’, that it is so popular to disparage, changed all of that and more for the better. Free Market proponents, who are so quick to advocate rolling back those gains so as to better unfettered enrich themselves; fail to recognize (or just plain don’t care) how morally evil much of that was.

 

Early US history wasn't really about rugged individualism; it was about ethnic and family groups clinging together to use a collective advantage against outside forces. Look at all the homogeneous populations both the countryside and the city. Italian neighborhoods, big German farming communities, ect. are all the result of groups of people co-operating to maximize their returns and help each other when sickness or tragedy struck. You can see the shadows of those groups in the names of streets and towns all across the country.

 

I think the rise of industrialism is more about the breaking of those social bonds and collective welfare, and making us willing to forgo looking out for each other in exchange for shiny consumer goods. We've morphed into and 'anti-society' country as a result.

Yes indeed, well put. Our real history and success is much more about collective socialistic efforts over individual capitalist achievement, than the other way around.

 

But those social support systems that enable individual success (running water, electricity, education, transportation and many, many more) are taken for granted today ‘it will always be there’ so no one thinks they need to scale back in the slightest their personal quests to ensure they still are. Until they aren’t.

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

zzzzzz

 

I think I may be one of the 3 IT workers to have never read LoTR much less seen any of the movies.

 

Now I know why...

 

Four.

Five.

 

Zzzzz... with a capital Zed.

[Whip]

They are not mutually exclusive. It is a symbiotic relationship that must be both recognized and nourished for both societal and individual success/survival. But we(the West) has lost track of that. We’ve gravitated to value the individual will disregarding the collective.

I agree

 

That statement is why our country is where it is.

 

We were a country of individuals and that is what made us great!

 

Now we are a bunch of collectives working against each other.

 

 

 

 

[Bob Palin]

We were a country of individuals and that is what made us great!

Nothing could be further from the truth, almost all the advances have come as a result of cooperation. Education, transportation systems, university research, DARPA, NASA etc etc

 

The militia in overcoming the king, the military in overcoming secession and slavery, WWI, WWII...

[TyTass]

I think that the idea that early America was a place of peaceful virtue is a myth. The railroad barons of the 19th century had no qualms about using naked force to get their way, and often used the government to do their dirty work for them. Early industrialists were the same way; fire the man and hire the wife at 50 cents on the dollar, then fire the wife and hire the children at 25 cents on the dollar. And throw your waste in the river and let whoever is downstream worry about it. Those are the lessons of unregulated capitalism; maximize profits by minimizing costs. And if you can use a gun or a whip to minimize costs, you will.

Yup, and the ‘nanny-state’, that it is so popular to disparage, changed all of that and more for the better. Free Market proponents, who are so quick to advocate rolling back those gains so as to better unfettered enrich themselves; fail to recognize (or just plain don’t care) how morally evil much of that was.

Early US history wasn't really about rugged individualism; it was about ethnic and family groups clinging together to use a collective advantage against outside forces. Look at all the homogeneous populations both the countryside and the city. Italian neighborhoods, big German farming communities, ect. are all the result of groups of people co-operating to maximize their returns and help each other when sickness or tragedy struck. You can see the shadows of those groups in the names of streets and towns all across the country.

 

I think the rise of industrialism is more about the breaking of those social bonds and collective welfare, and making us willing to forgo looking out for each other in exchange for shiny consumer goods. We've morphed into and 'anti-society' country as a result.

Yes indeed, well put. Our real history and success is much more about collective socialistic efforts over individual capitalist achievement, than the other way around.

 

But those social support systems that enable individual success (running water, electricity, education, transportation and many, many more) are taken for granted today ‘it will always be there’ so no one thinks they need to scale back in the slightest their personal quests to ensure they still are. Until they aren’t.

 

You guys are having a nice argument amongst yourselves, there. I particularly love the way you summarize the opposing position in a very ridiculous and narrow light, and then argue it only that way! The self-realized and self-dismissed argument! Nice touch. Very entertaining, I assure you.

 

Seriously, though ... in reading you guys, I find I agree with some statements you make, though not your conclusions. Your conclusions about what is an obvious moral breach makes me ask if you are suggesting:

 

- it's only wrong when individuals (e.g., unfettered capitalists) abuse their freedom by reducing the choices and freedoms of other people (or classes of people), but it's not immoral for our federal government to do so because it is by default a collective decision?

 

- that despite your admission our federal government has at times in the past been proven to be a pawn of these sorts of individuals (e.g., unfettered capitalists), it has since broken completely free from those sorts of manipulations, so that all laws passed by the federal government are by default for the greater good?

 

and the long one ...

 

- that although our government was undeniably formed with checks and balances, with states allowed to govern their people, with local governments put in place to further subdivide the powers above them to best protect their freedoms from governments from afar (thereby enabling those little groups of people to co-operate "to maximize their returns and help each other when sickness or tragedy struck"), it is now a foregone conclusion that system can no longer and should no longer work, that only a very few elements of society should be left to such low levels, and the nanny-state clearly can represent all such little groups of people equally?

 

- and on top of that, those little groups of people shouldn't feel abused by that nanny-state?

 

Frankly, it doesn't sound to me like you guys can relate very well at all to those little groups! But by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ken H.]

We were a country of individuals and that is what made us great!

 

Now we are a bunch of collectives working against each other.

You use to be a bunch of collectives working with each other.

 

And that is what use to make you great!

[Ken H.]

...makes me ask if you are suggesting:

 

- it's only wrong when individuals (e.g., unfettered capitalists) abuse their freedom by reducing the choices and freedoms of other people (or classes of people), but it's not immoral for our federal government to do so because it is by default a collective decision?

 

- that despite your admission our federal government has at times in the past been proven to be a pawn of these sorts of individuals (e.g., unfettered capitalists), it has since broken completely free from those sorts of manipulations, so that all laws passed by the federal government are by default for the greater good?

Nope and nope. Not suggesting anything of the kind, at least not in it's current form.

 

that although our government was undeniably formed with checks and balances, with states allowed to govern their people, with local governments put in place to further subdivide the powers above them to best protect their freedoms from governments from afar (thereby enabling those little groups of people to co-operate "to maximize their returns and help each other when sickness or tragedy struck"), it is now a foregone conclusion that system can no longer and should no longer work, that only a very few elements of society should be left to such low levels, and the nanny-state clearly can represent all such little groups of people equally?

 

- and on top of that, those little groups of people shouldn't feel abused by that nanny-state?

Nope, that's too broad of a brush. The "nanny-state" has to (should) balance decissions for all groups. Sometimes some win, sometimes some loose. It's when the balance is tipped toward one group, as it is now, to the rich, that we've lost the way.

[Bob Palin]

Once again I completely agree with Ken, few would claim that the government is working well, that's why we want change.

[Whip]

We were a country of individuals and that is what made us great!

Nothing could be further from the truth, almost all the advances have come as a result of cooperation. Education, transportation systems, university research, DARPA, NASA etc etc

 

The militia in overcoming the king, the military in overcoming secession and slavery, WWI, WWII...

 

 

 

Wrong, all our advances have come from individuals doing what they believed, often against the collective.

 

 

Killer, you can be excused. American history was prolly not on your list in Luton.

 

You guys need to sign up for Whip's history class and life lessons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

It's when the balance is tipped toward one group, as it is now, to the rich, that we've lost the way.

 

Wrong again.....the balance is in the favor of the unproductive and the rich have too big a burden so they are not investing, producing or earning.

 

..it really is that simple.

 

 

 

 

[Roadwolf]

Wrong again.....the balance is in the favor of the unproductive and the rich have too big a burden so they are not investing, producing or earning.

 

..it really is that simple.

 

I have pretty much stayed out of this for some time, but this really got me going...

 

Puhleeeeeze.

 

Ask any or read any economist that isn't tied to the supply side theory of economics and they will have your theory for lunch... any measurable statistic shows that over the last 30 years the chasm between the top 1 percent and the rest has grown ever larger. If I remember my dates right, it was in 1973 or so that the middle class and below that saw their wages pretty much flatline. It has been that way ever since.

 

And right now, close to a trillion dollars of freed up cash is waiting on the sidelines, held by Investment banks, monied interests, business owners, and the rest waiting to see how the recovery is going to play itself out, whether it is real or not.

 

The unproductive, as you call them, the great unwashed masses are scared because they don't know if they are next on the layoff list. People are holding back on spending, which in turn keeps the economy sluggish... all the while the rich and wealthy are doing pretty good right now, if not better than they were even at the beginning of the recession.

 

I don't even see how you can see that the scales are tipped to the ever DECREASING middle class and poor.

 

As a percentage of burden on the rich, I don't see the facts bearing that out. As a percentage of their income, especially on investment income, they make out pretty good... I suggest you read up on either David K. Johnston, Paul Krugman or Simon Johnson for more info and less on the Cato Institute for a balanced view of today's economy.

[Whip]

Sorry, no offense was intended.

 

The entire world has come around to my thoughts on this subject. That class warfare stuff makes good politics, but bad economics.

 

I think you need to study up on that supply side stuff, cause it is the only thing that can save us. We have tried the Krugman/Keynesian stuff and all we got is more debt just like the rest of the world who have been tryin the same BS.

 

We shoulda done what we just did two years ago and we would on our way to a full recovery, instead we spent and wasted.

 

....and yes there are too many peeps in the cart and not enough pulling it.

 

Everyone does better when the economy is growing. The folks that do the growing are sitting it out right now and till somethin changes(and it may have) they are gonna stay there with their money.

 

I know a bunch of small to medium bidness dudes that will not invest in anything as long the bidness climate stays the way it is.

 

I think maybe your the one that needs to do some more reading.

Your rewriting of history though colorful is factually misleading at best.

 

...but since you read Krugman....I understand.

 

I would be happy to suggest some reading if ya like.

 

BTW don't stay out of threads....no fun in that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right on Time

[Roadwolf]

We shoulda done what we just did two years ago and we would on our way to a full recovery, instead we spent and wasted.

 

Your other points... I get where you are coming from... don't agree on most of what you espouse, but this one quote I am trying to figure out... are you referring to the extension of the Bush Tax cuts here? Is that the "thing" that we just did that we should have done two years ago? Not following here.

 

Oh, and Krugman probably knows more about global economics that you, me and David Stockton put together plus room for more... Nobel prizes are not handed out to just your run of the mill brainiac. But since I am a sponge and not entrenched in my world view to be open minded, please give me your list of sources and I will gladly give em an honest attempt to digest some of what they contain.

 

Oh, and I usually just like to lurk on these type of threads just because I know that I am in the political and economic minority. This board tends to have some very vocal and opinionated Tea Party types and I'd rather not mix it up with them... it gets me nowhere. I let Ken do the representing.

[Whip]

Ken is great communicator and an good rep.

 

I ain't sure what the Tea Party is, I don't think they know.

 

Hayek and Friedman, also Noble prize recipients have a much better idea of how things work and what can be done to make em better than Krugman. Krugman may know more about the economies of the world than me, but he has no idea how to fix it. No country can afford to do what Krugman thinks will work, so he is not relevant. Unless you count Japan in the 90's or the US in the 30's, both times it was a bust. Greece, Portugal, Ireland.....they have been using that Keynesian BS for years.

 

We know the supply side theory works every time it has been tried. By work I mean the GDP gets better, unemployment goes down and the government takes in more revenue.

 

This is a good place to start.

 

 

[Roadwolf]

Already am familiar with your link... read up on it years ago. BTW, you never answered the question from my previous post.

[Dave McReynolds]

Our whole attitude these days about the unprecidented national debt reminds me of nothing so much as our national attitude right before the housing meltdown toward home equity loans. We had people right here on this forum who argued strenuously that there was no reason housing prices should ever go down. Now I see the same blind spot toward the national deficit.

 

I see leaders from the Dems and Reps, the liberals and the Tea Party, all cheering the passage of the recent tax bill, combined with cutting Social Security taxes, and other tax bennies thrown into the pot. Everything that was done increased the deficit, and nobody seems to be worried about it.

[steve.foote]

Nobel prizes are not handed out to just your run of the mill brainiac.

 

:rofl:

Now, that there may be the funniest thing I've read all week.

[steve.foote]

Everything that was done increased the deficit, and nobody seems to be worried about it.

 

Dave, there was a time when some people did. But, they were overwhelmingly rejected and now there are none. The debt has become so large, and beyond the ability to pay back, that knocking the tap off and draining the treasury dry is becoming a sensible strategy.

[Roadwolf]

:rofl:

Now, that there may be the funniest thing I've read all week.

 

Glad to make you bust a gut... errr, I think.

[Whip]

[DavidEBSmith]

We know the supply side theory has failed every time it has been tried.

 

Fixed it for ya.

[Whip]

We know the supply side theory has failed every time it has been tried.

 

Fixed it for ya.

 

Why,you start writing fiction in your spare time??

 

You would be good at it.

 

[Ken H.]

Wrong, all our advances have come from individuals doing what they believed, often against the collective.

Oh common, the individual can’t do anything individually!

 

The best and brightest individuals are good at getting others involved with making whatever they want to happen happen, but at that moment the success is no longer an individual one, it is a group, a collective, success. The individual may (inappropriately) take, or get all the credit, but in reality it isn’t true.

 

As a matter of fact a key component of what makes them great to start with is their recognition of the need to surround themselves with other great people.

 

Name one person recognized as ‘great’ that got there without a legion of support (at the very least) people.

 

[Ken H.]

I let Ken do the representing.

Gee thanks. I think!

[Mike]

I know a bunch of small to medium bidness dudes that will not invest in anything as long the bidness climate stays the way it is.

 

Same here. While I'm not in business and simply leech off of others, I do have a lot of friends who own small businesses and they remain highly discouraged. First, they are very concerned about the impact of recent legislation and what they perceive as a general anti-business sentiment in government. A number of them have told me that the health care bill, in particular, has caused them to abandon plans to hire more employees--they either can't predict the costs ahead, or they feel that they have a good idea of the costs and cannot move ahead.

 

The other factor, something that has roots and causes that are beyond my ability to comprehend, is that banks are no longer banking, at least with small businesses.

 

I'm not encouraged.

[Ken H.]

I know a bunch of small to medium bidness dudes that will not invest in anything as long the bidness climate stays the way it is.

Same here. While I'm not in business and simply leech off of others, I do have a lot of friends who own small businesses and they remain highly discouraged. First, they are very concerned about the impact of recent legislation and what they perceive as a general anti-business sentiment in government. A number of them have told me that the health care bill, in particular, has caused them to abandon plans to hire more employees--they either can't predict the costs ahead, or they feel that they have a good idea of the costs and cannot move ahead.

Seems like a rather self-fulfilling defeatist policy/attitude to me. With a little convenient excuse making, blame shifting, thrown in for good measure.

 

Who can predict the future about much of anything? The small business owner, or anyone else for that matter, can wallow around in ‘woe is me, look what they’ve done to me’ self-pity - a surefire way to not progress, or they can seek out opportunity in the cards that have been dealt and figure out a way to make ‘it’ happen. Or if it doesn’t; then the next thing, or the thing after that.

 

The only true definition of defeat is when you stop trying.

 

[David]

The only true definition of defeat is when you stop trying.

 

That's easy to say when you're working for someone else and don't have your own ass on the proverbial line, meeting payroll, paying suppliers, making big market decisions, etc.

 

 

[pbharvey]

I know a bunch of small to medium bidness dudes that will not invest in anything as long the bidness climate stays the way it is.

 

Six of my twenty company vehicles are due to be replaced but I'm waiting.

 

The warehouse space adjacent to mine is for sale but I'm waiting.

 

A few business investment opportunities have presented themselves to me but I'm waiting.

 

At some point, I'll be so used to waiting that it will be hard for me to get off dead center. I'll look at my accumulating cash and sleep comfortably.

 

There are a lot of us out here just watching and waiting.

 

I used to operate my business based on what the customer expected of me. Now many of my business decisions are based on what the government expects (demands) of me.

[KMG_365]

Thanks, I admit that my overall philosophy is probably unrealisitic in the current environment. It basically relies on a desire by a (vast) majority of people to make their goals a better society for all rather than personal gain. I know many people think that is best acheived by personal ambition but I don't like the inequities that throws up based on talent, drive and luck. To me those (first two) things are just the luck of genetics and I don't think that is a good way to live or judge people's worth. I also think we can acheive a lot more working together towards a goal rather than competing. Dream world, not going to happen, so I get on as best I can.

I read a fascinating paper last night that touched on the contrast between our "Western" approach to society vs the "Eastern" approach. We may have carried our approach to the inevitable extreme, beyond which it is no longer sustainable (sort of like a moral ponzi scheme). He summarizes the contrast thusly:

 

Through almost all of recorded history China was the largest economy in the world – and it kept itself to itself. Routine predictions tell us that China will soon be the biggest economy in the world once again. Confucian culture venerates intellectual activity and has no inhibitions about participating in the modern economy in which intellectual property is the most important asset. This has given Confucian business culture a new found level of confidence which Western cultures have not enjoyed since the industrial revolution, a mechanical revolution which sat easily in Western hands but which was anathema to the tradition of the Confucian mandarin.

 

These two great tribes began down their different paths around five hundred BC.

 

Socrates laid the foundations for the Western way when he drank poison rather than undermine the rule of law, saying:

 

If I go, I violate the laws of the state. Such an act would put me in opposition to the laws, and prove my disloyalty. ....There can be no better proof of my loyalty to the law than my willingness to die for it.

 

At about the same time, but in a land far distant from Greece, Confucius was writing his analects, which included the following key passage:

 

Lead the people by laws and regulate them by penalties and the people will try to keep out of jail but will have no sense of shame. Lead the people by virtue and restrain them by the rules of decorum and the people will have a sense of shame and moreover will become good.

 

Until recently the great strength of the Western tradition appeared to be its general adherence to the rule of Law - in both the public realm and the private sector. While Confucian societies are increasingly adopting the democratic rule of law in the public realm they continue to exclude the lawyers from involvement in their private business. The proliferation of anti-lawyer jokes in the West and the escalating cost of our dependency on the law to regulate business activity suggests that this strength maybe turning into a serious structural weakness for our private sector.

It seems like what we collectively lack (that perhaps we had in the "great" past) is a collective sense of shame (our historical "Protestant work ethic"?). We've tried to make up for that lack by fostering the growth of more and more laws (nanny state?) and the required increased number of lawyers to force people into "doing the right thing", but it's impossible to legislate morality: doing the right thing merely for the sake of doing the right thing--even when no one's watching and knowing that you'll likely not get caught either way. Just look at the latest stats on lawyers per capita and you'll see the symptom of the underlying disease.

 

America is running out of "frontier" (by many definitions) to exploit. Our "shire" has bumped up against and is now surrounded by a global Mordor. Like the great cities of Europe, we're going to have to learn how to exist in this new reality or our culture will go the way of the dodo. But: I still believe the required catalyst will have to be collapse--when the ability to just "kick the can down the road" (as the popular phrase goes) no longer works to maintain the comfort of the "I got mine, screw those who can't compete or won't work harder for their own success" folks. Only when the power goes out the water's not flowing folks will folks turn to a more sustainable (collective?) solution.

[Mike]

I know a bunch of small to medium bidness dudes that will not invest in anything as long the bidness climate stays the way it is.

Same here. While I'm not in business and simply leech off of others, I do have a lot of friends who own small businesses and they remain highly discouraged. First, they are very concerned about the impact of recent legislation and what they perceive as a general anti-business sentiment in government. A number of them have told me that the health care bill, in particular, has caused them to abandon plans to hire more employees--they either can't predict the costs ahead, or they feel that they have a good idea of the costs and cannot move ahead.

Seems like a rather self-fulfilling defeatist policy/attitude to me. With a little convenient excuse making, blame shifting, thrown in for good measure.

 

Who can predict the future about much of anything? The small business owner, or anyone else for that matter, can wallow around in ‘woe is me, look what they’ve done to me’ self-pity - a surefire way to not progress, or they can seek out opportunity in the cards that have been dealt and figure out a way to make ‘it’ happen. Or if it doesn’t; then the next thing, or the thing after that.

 

The only true definition of defeat is when you stop trying.

 

You clearly don't know the people I do. First, it's not an isolated story--I'm hearing it from virtually everyone I know who's a business owner. These are hard-working individuals who have, on repeated occasions, put their comfort and security on the line in pursuit of success. But, they have an interest in keeping afloat and in continuing to make payroll. It's gotten markedly more difficult. You can't blame the government entirely (a recession happened), but you can't ignore the impact of taxation and regulatory issues that are keeping them from doing now what they've done in the past.

[pbharvey]

Unemployment insurance is rocking us small business guys, we pay the freight for that "government" benefit. It just went up on us big. Next year it will go up big again.

[TyTass]

that although our government was undeniably formed with checks and balances, with states allowed to govern their people, with local governments put in place to further subdivide the powers above them to best protect their freedoms from governments from afar (thereby enabling those little groups of people to co-operate "to maximize their returns and help each other when sickness or tragedy struck"), it is now a foregone conclusion that system can no longer and should no longer work, that only a very few elements of society should be left to such low levels, and the nanny-state clearly can represent all such little groups of people equally?

 

- and on top of that, those little groups of people shouldn't feel abused by that nanny-state?

Nope, that's too broad of a brush. The "nanny-state" has to (should) balance decissions for all groups. Sometimes some win, sometimes some loose. It's when the balance is tipped toward one group, as it is now, to the rich, that we've lost the way.

BTW Ken, I wan't trying to argue a viewpoint above ... I was trying to understand precisely what you're espousing ...

 

It's now perfectly clear you think our federal government now more than ever makes it's decisions more often than not to the benefit of some very small subset of the nation's population (specifically in your words, the rich). You've made it clear you believe there exists of some sort of 50/50-ish, win/lose prospect that is obviously being missed due to the greed of the rich and the corruption of the government (whether the same exact people or not, no matter). You've made it clear there exists some way for a centralized government to balance that 50/50-ish, win/lose prospect in a fair manner acroos the nation.

 

What you haven't made clear is what that is to be based on if not the very agreements and accords that passes for constitutional law.

 

Are you espousing significant Ammendments to the Constitution? If so, like what?

 

OR

 

Do you suggest we throw all of that away and start fresh?

 

OR

 

Do you go to all this trouble to merely justify changes to the Tax code, to place more demand upon those who make grunches of money?

 

What are you espousing besides saying the system has failed?

[TyTass]

The only true definition of defeat is when you stop trying.

 

That's easy to say when you're working for someone else and don't have your own ass on the proverbial line, meeting payroll, paying suppliers, making big market decisions, etc.

 

As one who has spent much of my life on the military (admittedly said government) payroll, and since then having always worked for someone else, but who hopes and is planning to own my own small business one day (despite my fear and anxiety), I can still accept that what David says above is one of the greatest truths spoken in this entire discussion!

[russell_bynum]

The only true definition of defeat is when you stop trying.

 

That's easy to say when you're working for someone else and don't have your own ass on the proverbial line, meeting payroll, paying suppliers, making big market decisions, etc.

 

 

+1

[russell_bynum]

I know a bunch of small to medium bidness dudes that will not invest in anything as long the bidness climate stays the way it is.

Same here. While I'm not in business and simply leech off of others, I do have a lot of friends who own small businesses and they remain highly discouraged. First, they are very concerned about the impact of recent legislation and what they perceive as a general anti-business sentiment in government. A number of them have told me that the health care bill, in particular, has caused them to abandon plans to hire more employees--they either can't predict the costs ahead, or they feel that they have a good idea of the costs and cannot move ahead.

Seems like a rather self-fulfilling defeatist policy/attitude to me. With a little convenient excuse making, blame shifting, thrown in for good measure.

 

Who can predict the future about much of anything? The small business owner, or anyone else for that matter, can wallow around in ‘woe is me, look what they’ve done to me’ self-pity - a surefire way to not progress, or they can seek out opportunity in the cards that have been dealt and figure out a way to make ‘it’ happen. Or if it doesn’t; then the next thing, or the thing after that.

 

The only true definition of defeat is when you stop trying.

 

You clearly don't know the people I do. First, it's not an isolated story--I'm hearing it from virtually everyone I know who's a business owner. These are hard-working individuals who have, on repeated occasions, put their comfort and security on the line in pursuit of success. But, they have an interest in keeping afloat and in continuing to make payroll. It's gotten markedly more difficult. You can't blame the government entirely (a recession happened), but you can't ignore the impact of taxation and regulatory issues that are keeping them from doing now what they've done in the past.

 

From what I've seen, lots of big businesses are being extremely conservative right now as well. Nobody knows what the loonies in DC will do next (note: That was not directed at any particular political party or office.)

 

It is true that nobody can predict the future, but you need to at least be able to make some reasonable guesses about what's likely to happen in the coming years. Without solid leadership, nobody knows where we're going...or even where we're TRYING to go.

[KMG_365]

It is true that nobody can predict the future, but you need to at least be able to make some reasonable guesses about what's likely to happen in the coming years. Without solid leadership, nobody knows where we're going...or even where we're TRYING to go.

Well, any leadership had better take a good look around at the long term consequences of where they'd like to lead us. I fear too many prefer to take the short term approach (scary shades of Cameron's "Avatar") and don't give a damn about cutting down the very last Truffula tree.

 

Another symptom of the disease: complete lack of shame (let someone ELSE pay for the deficit--I'm gonna keep mine!).

 

And another symptom of the rate of progression of the disease: when 75 of your future leaders of the country don't even qualify to serve in the military you've got a VERY serious problem.

"If you can't get the people that you need, there's a potential for a decline in your readiness," said Barnett, who is part of the group Mission: Readiness, a coalition of retired military leaders working to bring awareness to the high ineligibility rates.

 

The report by The Education Trust found that 23 percent of recent high school graduates don't get the minimum score needed on the enlistment test to join any branch of the military. Questions are often basic, such as: "If 2 plus x equals 4, what is the value of x?"

 

The military exam results are also worrisome because the test is given to a limited pool of people: Pentagon data shows that 75 percent of those aged 17 to 24 don't even qualify to take the test because they are physically unfit, have a criminal record or didn't graduate high school.

 

As a "union thug" I also find the whingeing of the bidnessmen ironic and their plight eerily similar to what "Big Labor" (that was for you, Russell ) is told about just shutting up and learning to live with the "new normal". :smirk:

[russell_bynum]

As a "union thug" I also find the whingeing of the bidnessmen ironic and their plight eerily similar to what "Big Labor" (that was for you, Russell ) is told about just shutting up and learning to live with the "new normal".

 

That's just it...if we could figure out what the "new normal" was going to be, we could get to the task of figuring out how to make money in that environment.

 

(I liked the "Big Labor" thing. )

[Ken H.]

The only true definition of defeat is when you stop trying.

That's easy to say when you're working for someone else and don't have your own ass on the proverbial line, meeting payroll, paying suppliers, making big market decisions, etc.

So what’s the alternative (for the SBO)? Curl up in a ball, crawl under the desk (aka stay on the sidelines), and whine about ‘what they did to me?’

 

A lot of talk has gone on here about the need to return to what made this (the USA) great. Isn’t this attitude (scared of uncertainty) the very antithesis of that?

 

I just read an article about visible minorities making a successful go of it with starting small businesses in Detroit. Detroit!

 

Arguably the most extremely prejudiced against, maligned minority group(s) in the USA right now; are finding opportunity and making successes. THAT’s the “American Spirit” IMHO. Never mind that their book isn’t the Bible.

 

[Ken H.]

Are you espousing significant Ammendments to the Constitution? If so, like what?

 

OR

 

Do you suggest we throw all of that away and start fresh?

 

OR

 

Do you go to all this trouble to merely justify changes to the Tax code, to place more demand upon those who make grunches of money?

The second one.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

So what's the alternative (for the SBO)? Curl up in a ball, crawl under the desk (aka stay on the sidelines), and whine about 'what they did to me?'

 

As described earlier, small business owners are engaging in that alternative: a refusal to take on unquantifiable risks.

 

 

[doc47]

Wrong wrong wrong wrongety wrong wrong!

[TyTass]

Are you espousing significant Ammendments to the Constitution? If so, like what?

 

OR

 

Do you suggest we throw all of that away and start fresh?

 

OR

 

Do you go to all this trouble to merely justify changes to the Tax code, to place more demand upon those who make grunches of money?

The second one.

Thanks for the honesty.

 

I think then you'll further agree there are no provisions within the Constitution for doing just that. It's one thing to espouse social and legal change. It's quite another to espouse revolt. Dangerous ground, that.

 

But then again, perhaps not. If you believed there was use in going back and analyzing lessons from the past, you might even find a precedent in being able to peaceably wipe away the current version of Constitution, as was done with the Articles of Confederation. But as I said, you'd have to look into the past and believe you were able to understand what was written, what was intended, and whether it was and is still true.