re: Happy Election Day Mizzou Fans!!!

Don't worry, be happy....
Hasn't your state legalized marijuana?


Hope you won't think I am laughing at your valid concern. A lot of us took an arse-whipping today.

quote:

---

The Republic of the United States was never intended to practice "pure democracy," but this grand experiment is looking more and more like socialism, in my humble opinion.


In what manner? I don't see this. Enlighten me.

---

I think what was meant by this is the U.S was never intended for the people to vote on every issue, which would be a pure democracy. Instead, we elect officials and they vote on most of the issues, which is a representative democracy or a republic.

Our problem is these representatives voting on our behalf are doing what is best for corporations and banks, not the people. And they're most definitely voting on what benefits them politically in the short term, not the betterment of people for future generations.

As far as the socialism comment, I'd call this more of a fascist corporatism at the highest levels with people trying to inject the worst aspect of socialism into it, but there are some 'social' concepts that might improve our outdated form of capitalism.

Take Germany for example, they've been implementing a type of social-capatlism. An evolved form of capitalism if you will.. imagine if Wal-Mart employees could vote for half their board of directors.. might make things better for the employees. In Germany this is a mandate, so all those fortune 500 companies like Siemens must allow workers to vote for half the board. They're doing things like mandating insurance companies be non profit (interesting if you ask me), and these must be privately owned. So there is the big brother hand mandating non profit, but then it removes itself and makes the insurance companies remain privately owned.

I'm an anarchist though, I don't want any of this.. I'm just saying sometimes socialist ideas aren't all that bad, it's just in this country we are scared to death of that word and are only familiar with it's worst aspects. If we want to continue this materialistic world we've created where economies of meaningless money instead of the real wealth of the world is king, then we should probably start updating ourselves like some other countries have started to do.

quote:

---

Apples and Oranges. Tax money goes to funding state universities outside tuition as well so in order for your comparison to have weight high schools and elementary schools would have to charge tuition on top of tax funding.

---

Really? Your splitting hairs. Both are funded by tax dollars, both run on budgets, both have feunding being cut every year. Why? One thing is loss of revenue, the other is tax cuts. Fundamentaly, whether it's a percent of tax dollars towards public Colleges or with elementry-HS being funded by nearly 100% of your tax dollars, in the end it is tax dollars. If you feel none should go towards one, then why would you want to fund the other?

So if you no longer fund colleges with tax money, then it would be a step towards not funding or cutting funding to public education. Which in reality is already happening. As it is with College funding from the state which some of that comes from fedral dollars. Not every one is born into the same level of living.

quote:

---

Where does the entitlement end? That would be my question. Is it really the burden of the taxpayer, on top of the normal taxes that are paid to fund the University at the state level, to also pay for tuition for every person that wants to go to any college they choose? Military service or civic duty requirements are reasonable avenues for gaining education benefits and repayment but are very rarely used to gain the resources required for tuition. I have no issue with no interest student loans either. Im no against having grants etc. Im against every person feeling the are OWED a college education regardless of whether the tax payer has to foot the bill or not. I'm really not sure how this isnt a reasonable view quite honestly. People have different paths through life and we are all not equal.

---

Where does entitlement end? Do you pay taxes? Sure, Do I pay taxes? Yep. Do I feel like if I send my kid to college, if there is dollars there to help fund thier secondary education, should we be entitled to use those dollars? After all I pay taxes also. I work for those dollars to pay those taxes, just as a military person serves time in the military and deserves or is entiteled to that benefit also. I absolutley, think all military current and veteran deserve the best foot forward that we can give them. At the same time I feel the same way about working men and women. But as I said above, not everyone has the same opportunity maybe as I do to have a good paying job to qualify for school loans. Not everyone has the physical ability to go into the military for the perpouse Of funding thier secondary education. Not every high school kid graduates high school with the feeling that they are Owed a free ride through college on taxpayers dollar. But whats wrong with helping those who can't for one reason or another?

quote:

---

Jafo, I agree with you. Labor unions aren't all bad. The union my dad belonged to make sure he was paid a good, not great but good, wage, and as a result, I had wonderful insurance and my parents were able provide me with a car, a college education, and a trip to Europe when I was in college - among many, many other blessings. There has to be an equalizer. It's sad but true that humans are a naturally greedy bunch. Business owners will pay no more than they have to in order to improve their bottom lines. On the other hand, you have people who have unreasonable expectations about what they are owed. As an example, I have a cousin who works for GM. When he gets "laid off", they hold his job for him so that, by seniority, he will be called back as soon as there is work for him. And while he's "laid off", he still keeps his benefits and draws 90% of his wages. Give me that deal any day! This was before the companies were restructured, it may not be that way now. Unions protect people from unfair employment practices. They are not all bad. But they also need to be checked sometimes too. And Bogie - don't you just wish you could have dinner with Thomas Jefferson? Get his thoughts on things today? I'd love to know how the founding fathers would feel about things. They set up a phenomenal framework with the Constitution - but I wonder what changes they would make if they could see what we have become. We are SO big now, and world-wide the standard of living has increased, so much has changed. I just think it would be fascinating.

---

I am a Union official. I steward the dept. in a facilty that employees over 250 people. I get no compensation for this. It's a thankless job. But I see both sides of this everyday. Well most days. There are days I go home with my head pounding and my eyeballs about to pop out of my head. You know why I do it? I do it because it gives me a chance to help people, and it's a job not many can deal with. It requires me to work hand in hand with our plant manager on down. It is an exercise in frustration. Nothing is given even when both sides know who's wrong. Unions are a necessity in this country because you have companies that are willing to strip everything in order to pay more money to thier investors. It's that simple.

I agree there has to be an equalizer. That in most cases is the union. Yes there are greedy people, and most are at the top raking in more money than you or I will see in our lifetimes, probably in some cases both our incomes put together. I also agree some unions are just as greedy, but when you have a group setting there watching CEO's reap in money on bonuses and thier inflated slaries, those union guys are going to want a part of the pie they helped produce. But there are exptremes, as you mentioned about the GM layoff language. I believe that is defunked now. But I refer to it as "pricing yourself out". I think the current economy has opened most unions eyes to this.

The best people to keep unions in check are the union people themselves. In order to get some of those lofty benefits, sometimes it results in walking a picket line. Which I have done. Believe me, it's not easy to step out on the street. But there are instances where sometimes it's unavoidable. Companies have gotten so big anymore, that there has'nt been as much of that as in the past when you still had individuals owning companies. Alot of these large companies are basically holding companies....investors... and they are big enough they care a big stick. It forces unions now days to consider consessions before other things. To me, a companies single most important investment, is their employees.

I don't know if you would be interested or not with Jeffersons ideas on straightening out America. Consider the day and age he lived in and the lifestyles those folks led.

quote:

---

Instead of investing your money, you should give it away so that someone else can have a shot.

---

I do give a decent amount to charities every year. However, I am much less inclined to do so when the socialism is taking such a bite out of my assets.

I am a big fan of Shriner's Hospital in St. Louis.

quote:

---

To me, a companies single most important investment, is their employees.

---

I agree with you 100%. Because people are still the only thing that cannot be copied. products, software, distribution channels, technology...all that can be copied, and is. People can't be, which is why you should hire the best people you can, and pay them well, and invest in them - they will then give you a sustainable competitive advantage.

quote:

---

Really? Your splitting hairs. Both are funded by tax dollars, both run on budgets, both have feunding being cut every year. Why? One thing is loss of revenue, the other is tax cuts. Fundamentaly, whether it's a percent of tax dollars towards public Colleges or with elementry-HS being funded by nearly 100% of your tax dollars, in the end it is tax dollars. If you feel none should go towards one, then why would you want to fund the other?

So if you no longer fund colleges with tax money, then it would be a step towards not funding or cutting funding to public education. Which in reality is already happening. As it is with College funding from the state which some of that comes from fedral dollars. Not every one is born into the same level of living.

---

You are missing the point. Tax dollars are already going to fund the state Universities regardless of tuition assistance from the federal and state tax base. Its not splitting hairs, its just the way it is. This also goes to the point that some feel its a birthright to go to college and that is part of the entitlement mentality. Comparing my desire to limit federal and state spending on College tuition with not wanting to fund elementary and secondary education is completely unreasonable. I have no problem having tax revenue go to funding either the University or the secondary and elementary education in the state.

quote:

---

Where does entitlement end? Do you pay taxes? Sure, Do I pay taxes? Yep. Do I feel like if I send my kid to college, if there is dollars there to help fund thier secondary education, should we be entitled to use those dollars? After all I pay taxes also.

---

When the country outspends, by a large margin, its revenue. Therein lies the problem. The reality is OUR tax money doenst cover all the bills. Some may feel ok with running up a record deficit but I do not what so ever. We are mortgaging our future so that everyone can be "equal". Its not governments responsibility to ensure that everyone is financially equal. College tuition is a LUXURY not a necessity or right.

quote:

---

I work for those dollars to pay those taxes, just as a military person serves time in the military and deserves or is entiteled to that benefit also. I absolutley, think all military current and veteran deserve the best foot forward that we can give them. At the same time I feel the same way about working men and women. But as I said above, not everyone has the same opportunity maybe as I do to have a good paying job to qualify for school loans. Not everyone has the physical ability to go into the military for the perpouse Of funding thier secondary education. Not every high school kid graduates high school with the feeling that they are Owed a free ride through college on taxpayers dollar. But whats wrong with helping those who can't for one reason or another?

---

In order to qualify for the GI Bill military personnel have to financially buy into the program over an extended period of time. That would be akin to a joint investment by a worker and its employer to set up a college fund. That doesnt really fall in line with an "entitlement" and quite frankly is nothing like being entitled to the same considerations because a civilian "pays taxes" Military personnel pay taxes as well but further more sacrifice far more than the average American citizen will ever know in service to their country.

People are not born under the same financial opportunities. Thats life and reality. What everyone is born under is the right to have a country where they have the opportunity to rise above and strive to succeed based on their own hard work and determination. The government should not be in the business of ensuring EVERYONE has the financial means to achieve these goals.

Look, Im not a hard line conservative that feels that government should completely stay out of social programs that help deserving people. What I am, however, is a fisal conservative who thinks that social issues and their funding needs to be triaged by priority along with other spending and programs scaled back until we balance our budgets and pay down the debt.

There just seems to be a disconnect among the american people that the deficit spending really isnt "our" problem and cuts and balances need to be found in areas that are not important to the individual. The honest reality at this point is ALL of us need to cut back and do without in order to pay down a 16 Trillion, 16 TRILLION dollar deficit that if left unchecked under current spending would spiral to 22 trillion by 2016.

Social issues have to take a back seat, outside of the most basic survival aspects of government programs until we can pay for them without driving straight for a nation in economic ruin.

Spend what you can afford. Its very simple.

Jafo, I enjoy the debate. I dont mean to offend you at all and if so, Im sorry,

quote:

---

But anyways, don't go away thinking I don't understand what your saying.

---

It really is nice to be able to have a conversation with people about political views and not have it turn vitriolic and adversarial. Thats what our founders wanted for us and its a shame we have moved squarely into the realm of two party adversarial politics on a national level.

"In what manner? I don't see this. Enlighten me.." -SoCalMiz

quote:

---

the definition of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (American College Dictionary).

---

But socialism in the strictest since would completely abolish the institution of private property, leaving government as the sole corporation or employer/provider. In the USA, the Federal Government is already the largest single employer in the labor force. As our country has grown, government has taken on more roles that were once left solely to the private sector. But since the right to own private property hasn't been abolished, a fascist form of governance is more like what the constitutional purists might say they see evolving in the USA.

(To me, there is only a minor distinction between socialism & fascism. They both operate with the mindset that "Big Brother" knows best.)

As I recall from government class, our federal government was created for three reasons: 1.) Establish law and order/ three branches of government with checks and balances 2.) Establish a national currency 3.) Provide for strong national dense

To me, the role of government should be to provide for the collective community, services and infrastructure in a more efficient and fiscally responsible manner than which could be accomplished by separate effort of individuals. There has to be some form of taxation to pay for the service/infrastructure. I think most citizens agree and accept the duty of paying taxes. But there is a limit to what the public can bear to pay in taxes. Most of middle class America is now working about six months to pay their taxes, and the remaining six months to provide the needs and wants of personal consumption.

******
Just some thoughts from a frustrated average tax paying American. Why can't the federal government create a balanced budget? Why are the politicians, regardless of party, more interested in their next election cycle than making the unpopular decision to cut spending/increase taxes? I suspect we are all going to have to share some loss/cost to get our country back on sound fiscal ground. The longer we delay, the more painful the cure will be.

P.S.
By the way, some absolutely great commentary and sharing of ideas by all you posters. Thanks, everyone!

quote:

---

Socialism - I don't think most people in this country would let it happen

---

I can't agree with this statement...