Debt Ceiling and the threat of The U.S. Defaulting

[ColdHeartonIce]

BOTH parties are at fault. Neither party has the best interests of the COUNTRY in mind, they only have THEIR OWN best interests in mind.

What is the best interest of the "COUNTRY"? The interestes of the people who live in? You protect their interests by not getting in their way when they do business with each other. When people talk about collectiv interestes, like country, they usual mean the government should give them a free lunch. Free education for example. No! Everything government spends it has taken from someone else. It violated individual interests in the first place.

 

 

Ban paid lobbyists.

Lobbyism isn't the problem.

 

You see everyone is for seperation of church and state but doesn't know what this means. Its not to protect the state from the church, but the religion of every individual from the state. So if you seperate economy and state, that means Govuernment shouldn't have the power to dictate anything in the economy. If this is so, there is no reason to pay Lobbyists. It just makes sense when government can make regulations and acts to ban your competition or force people to buy your product.

 

You wanna ban lobbyism? How? If people didn't get bribed in their activ serving time, they will payed after. Or hired after. Banning something doesn't make any sense.

 

 

THEN we might see congress start working for americans.

Congress can't do anything without stealing from someone in the first place. Its a bad deal.

Well at least its a bad deal if you care about those who get robbed and want them to be free. If you don't care and just have the higher good in mind, that makes you a looter and even less than the Corporations who pay Politicians with the money they made themself.

[sukeban]

BOTH parties are at fault. Neither party has the best interests of the COUNTRY in mind, they only have THEIR OWN best interests in mind.

What is the best interest of the "COUNTRY"? The interestes of the people who live in? You protect their interests by not getting in their way when they do business with each other. When people talk about collectiv interestes, like country, they usual mean the government should give them a free lunch. Free education for example. No! Everything government spends it has taken from someone else. It violated individual interests in the first place.

 

 

Ban paid lobbyists.

Lobbyism isn't the problem.

 

You see everyone is for seperation of church and state but doesn't know what this means. Its not to protect the state from the church, but the religion of every individual from the state. So if you seperate economy and state, that means Govuernment shouldn't have the power to dictate anything in the economy. If this is so, there is no reason to pay Lobbyists. It just makes sense when government can make regulations and acts to ban your competition or force people to buy your product.

 

You wanna ban lobbyism? How? If people didn't get bribed in their activ serving time, they will payed after. Or hired after. Banning something doesn't make any sense.

 

 

THEN we might see congress start working for americans.

Congress can't do anything without stealing from someone in the first place. Its a bad deal.

Well at least its a bad deal if you care about those who get robbed and want them to be free. If you don't care and just have the higher good in mind, that makes you a looter and even less than the Corporations who pay Politicians with the money they made themself.

 

Oh snap! We've got a Randian on our hands!

 

Whilst I agree that the only reason that lobbyists are effective is because government has interfered in certain areas of the economy, distorting natural markets--I profoundly disagree with you that such interference is always unnecessary. In business, you can see it all the time--useless regulations stifling private enterprise and driving up the cost of "doing business" beyond the natural price of the good or service. You can apply Bureaucratic Theory to this, that government agencies are more interested in maximizing their budget and manpower (see: the Pentagon) than they are about being efficacious administrators of the public good, and that any expansion of regulation is an automatic "win" for the regulatory agency. These agencies often they do not even talk to each other--or coordinate in any way!--and many folks staffing them are, to be frank, not very intelligent. Yet, since they are in government, they are able to hold businesses hostage and--sometimes to the point of narcissism--demand displays of "fealty" (wine and dine, gracious letters, free stuff) before they will act on your behalf. That is perverted and foul and saps life from the economy.

 

On the other hand, government regulation does do plenty of nice things, like keep our air clean, our water clean, keeps chemicals out of children's toys, etc.--all of which I believe in. You can be some sort of a free-market militant about it and say "caveat emptor"--but if some child dies because there's rat poison in his lollipop, I sure as hell am not going to blame the kid or his mother for not reading the fine print on the back of the label or buying from a cut-rate candy maker. No, you go directly to the source and say: "You cannot put rat poison in lollipops!"--full stop.

 

Certain things ARE a public good--like our air, our water, noise, etc. The impacts that one industry has on these cannot be contained to only the property that said business owns--it spreads to everyone else as well. Therefore, what one business does on their property is everyone's problem--and everyone else can have a say in it. That implies regulation and the elimination of certain practices that foul up public resources for private gain.

 

And finally, free market fundamentalists ignore the complexity of this world and social science. PEOPLE ARE NOT RATIONAL ACTORS, in economics or in most of the rest of their lives. People buy new cars while they default on their home loans, they buy methamphetamines as their children starve, they buy expensive vacations going mountain climbing in Nepal when they could be saving for their retirement. The entire point of advertising is to distort "rational choice" and instead make purchasing an emotional, irrational experience. Given this, I frankly do not see how other people (entrepreneurs, peons, or corporations) can be trusted to behave rationally when they have such an extensive track record of doing precisely the opposite. Government needs to be there, laying down some ground rules to preserve society from the selfish, irrational eccentricities that we would all otherwise engage in if given complete freedom. Liberal convention dictates that these guidelines be as minimal of possible--but we still need them. This only becomes more true over time, as the world becomes more complex and the ability of one individual to screw it up becomes amplified. People and companies are obviously free to "to their own thing" within limits, but when doing that thing interfere with the things of so many others in an increasingly networked, connected world--I most definitely take the utilitarian view that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the one.

Edited January 10, 2013 by sukeban

[colourwheel]

What is the best interest of the "COUNTRY"? The interestes of the people who live in?

 

Actually you kinda answered the question yourself. The Interestes of the people. We elect politicians in office to make laws and govern the country on behalf of the people. You can debate if the the people who we elect into office will actually end up doing this or not but this is the sole purpose of our government.

 

Ban paid lobbyists.

Lobbyism isn't the problem.

 

Lobbyism in general may not be a problem yet lobbyist effecting political decision for our government goes completely against the interestes of the people of the nation. Yet corporations and organizations are a collection of a few people, Corporations and organizations are not people and should not be treated to be thought as the interest of the people of an entire nation but rather just the interest of a few...

 

You see everyone is for seperation of church and state but doesn't know what this means. Its not to protect the state from the church, but the religion of every individual from the state.

 

Not sure where you get this idea from but this is what Thomas Jefferson ment...

 

The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion.

 

Has nothing to do about protection from anything other than reinforcing the 1st amendment rights.

 

Congress can't do anything without stealing from someone in the first place. Its a bad deal.

Well at least its a bad deal if you care about those who get robbed and want them to be free. If you don't care and just have the higher good in mind, that makes you a looter and even less than the Corporations who pay Politicians with the money they made themself.

 

This is a very cynical way to view our political system as a whole. Congress might be very dysfunctional right now but hardly view people holding political office as a whole being thieves and thugs. People who participate in the political system do so as a public service. Whether they endup doing good or bad for the country is a different story once in office.

Edited January 10, 2013 by colourwheel

[ColdHeartonIce]

@sukeban

 

It isn't government that keeps childrens toys free from toxic stuff. Its the opposite for example. See, if they would set a safety limit on toys how many toxic materials they can contain, they would just go under this safety limit and when you still getting sick, you care screwed because you can't sue them because they stayed under the safety limit.

 

Its the same talking points all over again. Clean air, clean water. Thats nonsense, the consumer desiceds if he wants to buy from a corp. which puts toxics in the water and thats the best control mechanism you could have. Also, i a privat economy someone would own the River or the Forest where corps dumb their toxic waste. That would lead to a conflict with the owner that could even result in war. Thats not in the interest of privat business and they would find other ways to get rid of their waste. Also, there wouldn't be such things as an Enviorment Agency which can force you from your land because they found a rare species of some sort of worm there.

 

There are already so many good books out there where all this is explained, no need to debate this again.

 

PS: You know the Nazis were every green? They were the once who started this enviorment protection by government to control peoples life. Its the best way to enslave people because it declares Men as the Problem.

Edited January 10, 2013 by ColdHeartonIce

[JimboUK]

@sukeban

 

It isn't government that keeps childrens toys free from toxic stuff. Its the opposite for example. See, if they would set a safety limit on toys how many toxic materials they can contain, they would just go under this safety limit and when you still getting sick, you care screwed because you can't sue them because they stayed under the safety limit.

 

Its the same talking points all over again. Clean air, clean water. Thats nonsense, the consumer desiceds if he wants to buy from a corp. which puts toxics in the water and thats the best control mechanism you could have. Also, i a privat economy someone would own the River or the Forest where corps dumb their toxic waste. That would lead to a conflict with the owner that could even result in war. Thats not in the interest of privat business and they would find other ways to get rid of their waste. Also, there wouldn't be such things as an Enviorment Agency which can force you from your land because they found a rare species of some sort of worm there.

 

There are already so many good books out there where all this is explained, no need to debate this again.

 

PS: You know the Nazis were every green? They were the once who started this enviorment protection by government to control peoples life. Its the best way to enslave people because it declares Men as the Problem.

 

I think you need a basic set of enforced standards, assuming that the consumer has anything other than value in mind when they buy products is maybe being a little optimistic. If we really cared about these things we wouldn't buy things made overseas in sweatshops, Apple wouldn't be in business given what goes on at Foxconn and we wouldn't buy from places that treat their employees like crap. The trick is getting the balance right, something politicians seem incapable of doing.

[ColdHeartonIce]

The reason because enterprises went to china and those sweatshops countries is because its more profitable compared to the western nations. Government caused circumstances which make it unprofitable to produce here. Its nearly impossible to start business in a western nation without reading tons of juristical crap first, than bring a float which count does the government decides, make tax prepayment and so on. Its a nightmare basicly. And in France they now demand a 75% "Rich Tax". Everyone is fleeing this country.

The US are gone over the fiscal cliff decades ago and with all those planned destruction of industry and jobs there is no way back.

 

See it isn't corporate greed or some of these other bolschewik envy stories, its government. And i think people who demand all the time for free stuff and handouts and that someone else gets robbed in their name, they deserve to lose their jobs.

 

Also, there is no such thing as "balance". Is there a "balance" of being pregnant and being not? These third ways are compelling but they will always lead into a downfall.

 

 

And just something about sweatshops, in those countries they pay more than the avarege wage is there. Take it or leave it, but as soon you start to invent things by your own and try to produce, government will get in your way.

[JimboUK]

It's combination of many things, to blame it on just one thing is simplistic. You're right about western governments, they're no better than parasites but they do have a place. I don't want to live in a country where children die because towns and villages are full of toxic chemicals as happens in China, I don't want people treated like they are at Foxconn either. What's needed is a balanced common sense approach, not partisan nonsense that get's us nowhere. Germany is a good example of it being done right, the U.K, U.S and France are great examples of how to get it wrong.

[Maharg67]

The reason because enterprises went to china and those sweatshops countries is because its more profitable compared to the western nations. Government caused circumstances which make it unprofitable to produce here. Its nearly impossible to start business in a western nation without reading tons of juristical crap first, than bring a float which count does the government decides, make tax prepayment and so on. Its a nightmare basicly. And in France they now demand a 75% "Rich Tax". Everyone is fleeing this country.

 

There has been no real justification for the move of corporations, to China, except for greed. That they would choose to pay low wages, and not be met by any real regulatory obligations, speaks poorly of those corporations and the people behind them. Do profits, high dividends, justify what has been happening when corporations abandon their own nations and close their eyes to what is happening in China with the environment, with many employees and to Chinese government corruption? I do not think so! This is short sighted, narrow minded, self centered greed at work. The situation would be better if China was also well regulated and the corporations had staid based in their own nations.

 

It would also be better if western consumers had not rushed off to buy cheaper Chinese goods and I have been guilty of this myself; now many ranges of goods only come from China.

 

One day China may simply turn around and nationalize all the corporate resources in their country. Why not, if they can get away with it and it is to their advantage to do so in the future? There is always change taking place and the Chinese Government does not think as Westerners do. I studied Chinese Communist history at university and what I learned was a deep surprise to me. One day it may be a more shocking surprise to many western corporations and consumers.

[HeyYou]

The reason because enterprises went to china and those sweatshops countries is because its more profitable compared to the western nations. Government caused circumstances which make it unprofitable to produce here. Its nearly impossible to start business in a western nation without reading tons of juristical crap first, than bring a float which count does the government decides, make tax prepayment and so on. Its a nightmare basicly. And in France they now demand a 75% "Rich Tax". Everyone is fleeing this country.

The US are gone over the fiscal cliff decades ago and with all those planned destruction of industry and jobs there is no way back.

 

See it isn't corporate greed or some of these other bolschewik envy stories, its government. And i think people who demand all the time for free stuff and handouts and that someone else gets robbed in their name, they deserve to lose their jobs.

 

Also, there is no such thing as "balance". Is there a "balance" of being pregnant and being not? These third ways are compelling but they will always lead into a downfall.

 

 

And just something about sweatshops, in those countries they pay more than the avarege wage is there. Take it or leave it, but as soon you start to invent things by your own and try to produce, government will get in your way.

 

Many factors contributed to the offshoring of american jobs. The government giving tax breaks for doing so being right up there on the list. What was intended to help developing nations, hurt the USA. Big time. That most certainly was NOT in the "best interests of the people", it was in the best interests of corporate america.

 

Business won't regulate itself for the public good. They will do what makes them the most money. If lead-based paint is cheaper, that's what they will use. If dumping their waste in the back yard is cheaper than dealing with it so it doesn't poison the environment, (and thereby kill off their target consumers....) that's what they will do. They have more than adequately demonstrated that FACT time and again since the beginning of recorded history.

 

None of this has anything at all to do with 'people demanding free stuff'. That is just a red herring to push the argument away from the real point, which is: Government is controlled by big business, via the lobbyists.

[ColdHeartonIce]

I don't want to live in a country where children die because towns and villages are full of toxic chemicals as happens in China, I don't want people treated like they are at Foxconn either.

Yeah, yeah i know these pictures where the area around the Hwang Ho river look like Mordor and right and left people have more cancer tumors than fingers.

 

What caused that? Government. Government dumps the toxic waste in the river that comes out of government factories like Foxconn where Government forces people to work as slaves. Government, Government, Government. Have you seen these footages where Government officials go around in the factory with a clipboard to notice which female worker had there period on which day so that they can enforce their one-child policy? Its GOVERNMENT who does that.

Compare East and West Germany to each other. In the west there was untill 1970 a small government and in the east everything was government. The West hand't even a sales tax before 1968. The East was a toxic wasted dump. Is this so hard to get? How many times do i have to wrote this just to get the next "Yeah but..." answer?

 

Maharg67

There has been no real justification for the move of corporations,

They dont need to justify. Why should they need to justify? Its not your company, its theirs.

Its their business and if they just get restricted on one place, they move to another. I can't blame them.

 

I studied Chinese Communist history at university and what I learned was a deep surprise to me.

And what you spend your time for at a university i can get for 5 bucks at the liberary. Antony Sutton wrote many books on western technology transfers to the Red Chinese made by Bechtel.

 

HeyYou

Business won't regulate itself for the public good.

Here we go again.... the public good...

Edited January 10, 2013 by ColdHeartonIce